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. . . "
Submission Summary: 0 pending, 4 declined, 0 accepted (4 total, 0.00% accepted)
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).