Re: Copyright assignments and the MAINTAINERS file

[neroden at twcny dot rr dot com (Nathanael Nerode)]

law@redhat.com wrote:
>Because RMS refuses to have the copyright list be public.
>jeff

Robert Dewar wrote:
>There are obvious problems in publishing this list without
>clear written permission from the signing parties.

Actually, there aren't obvious problems; at any rate, if there are
problems, they aren't obvious to me!

I believe, if I'm not very much mistaken, that secret contracts are
generally "against public policy" and there's no way to keep them secret
if it matters.  Furthermore, if a legal copyright dispute ever arose, the
assignments would have to be made public in order for the FSF to
prove that it had the copyrights.  (Again, unless I'm very much mistaken,
since I'm not a lawyer.)

Anyway, I can't see why someone would object to the public knowing that he's
assigned certain copyrights -- if he *has* done so, and has contributed
his work on a public mailing list, and so on!

So what precisely is wrong with making public the list of people who have
signed a certain boilerplate copyright assignment contract?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http://www.misleader.org/  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/