Re: [libiberty copyright assignment audit] cp-demangle.c status

[kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)]

neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode)  wrote on 04.08.03 in <20030804204438.GA5928@twcny.rr.com>:

> Robert Dewar said:
> >Note that the copyright notice has nothing to do with whether or not it
> >is assigned.
> >The actual copyright status of any file is determined independently of
> >any
> >notice in the file itself.
>
> While I what you mean, this isn't actually quite correct, as I
> discovered.  The issue lies in copyright assignments which assign "all
> changes made to GCC..." or some such.  In this case the question of
> whether the file is part of GCC becomes paramount.
>
> If the file itself claims to be part of GCC, as well as being
> distributed with GCC, I think that's quite sufficient to establish that
> the file is 'part of GCC'.

No, I think (IANAL) the point here is subtly different. If the file is  
part of gcc but claims to be omething different, then someone who has an  
assignment on file that covers gcc but not the other thing, and who  
contributes to it, might not realize that the file actually is part of  
gcc, and thus might behave under the assumption that what (s)he does is  
not covered by that assignment - for example, (s)he might contribute code  
that his company has (say) published under the GPL, but is not willing to  
assign to the FSF.

That is exactly where the appearance of things can become more important  
than the truth of things, when it leads people to do stuff they otherwise  
would not have done.

So it actually matters that Zack says he assumed it was covered.

MfG Kai