> > As you know, I will not assign my copyright to the FSF,
> > nor to anyone else. All the code I write is GPL'ed.
> > You don't need to own the copyright on any code in
> > order to be able to enforce the GPL. [...]
> Indeed, and in fact for a long time the copyright
> was owned by me before it was assigned to the FSF.
> It's not required per se, but generally speaking,
> there must be a Maintainer of the Software who
> believes in the ideals of the GNU system
I do believe in the ideal of the GNU system: to have
computer systems that consist entirely of libre
software.
> and will adhere to the GNU coding standards
That is too bureaucratic, not libre enough.
That's a great summary and an eye-opener on the whole situation. Everything aside, but isn't this FSF enforcement a little too much burden for some? Does it actually change anything? (apart from giving a bad sensation when you hear "now we own the copyright of your work")
The strength of the GNU licenses depends on existing copyright laws [plural]. As the copyright holder, GNU is more likely to have standing in an arbitrary jurisdiction when seeking to enforce the license.
Whether or not enforcement is important is another matter. If it isn't, then there's nothing but a fantastic warm fuzzy in choosing GNU over a "do whatever you want" license. To put it another way, license terms like other contract terms should align with what the author is willing to go through the bother of enforcing.
I'm confused. The reason the FSF gives for copyright assignment is precisely in aid of their legal enforcement of the GPL. From their website [1]:
... enforcement of copyright is generally not possible
for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone
having assignment of the copyright can enforce the
license.
...
That's a reason, but I suspect not the prime reason. The ACLU, the Institute for Justice, Pacific Legal Foundation, etc. usually never have a direct claim themselves in the cases they're involved in... they look for some other party that has standing and then assists that party in pursuing their case in court. I don't see why the FSF could not also follow that model by supporting any copyright holder in litigating/negotiating GPL license breaches.
What they do get with assignment is that they can ensure that the software is only ever issued under the license/license version of their choosing. Any other copyright holder can cease distributing their software under the GPL; true, they cannot revoke previously granted rights, but future versions, etc. can be made to be non-FOSS. An independent copyright holder could also dual license their code GPL and closed source. I think avoiding those scenarios is really why FSF wants the assignment. Not the ability to litigate, that's just an excuse.
