LuYu writes: I was just reading the eWeek article linked from the Slashdot article Microsoft License Goes to OSI But Not From Redmond, and I noticed an interesting phrase:
I have seen this before in statements about the FSF owning the "copyrights to the GPL". Considering the intent and scope of Title 17, is this correct? Can licenses that cover copyrights be copyrighted? If so, why? Is this sort of recursive view of the law consistent with the intent of copyright? Hopefully, some of the legal minds (members of the bar and non members) can shed some light on this issue."In response, Brendan Scott, an open-source advocate and a proponent of customer copyright, who set up OSL (Open Source Law), a "micro boutique" legal practice based in Sydney, Australia, noted that "the process of approval is undermined unless the copyright holder of the license submits to the jurisdiction of the OSI. Exactly who does it is not to the point, but there must be a clear chain of authority from the ultimate copyright holder. . . "