Re: Basic legal question: Publication of a fix to psgml

["B. T. Raven" <btraven@nihilo.net>]

Die Wed Apr 03 2013 07:03:40 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Andreas
Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> scripsit:

> Am 03.04.2013 10:29, schrieb Bastien:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:
>>
>>> CA, as we learned, is partly privately negotiated.
>>
>> Not to my knowledge.
>>
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-04/msg00066.html
> 
> BTW experienced that proceeding already years ago, which is just polite
> and correct as such.
> 
>> The copyright assignment is signed by contributors.  I'm not aware of
>> any negociations, and I'd be surprised to learn that there are private
>> negociations.
>>
>>> To evaluate the legal state of different parts in Emacs wrt CA will
>>> need one or more lawyers.
>>
>> This suggests that the copyright status of Emacs is uncertain.
> 
> Law and legal stats differ in theory and reality.
> In theory more laws define more cases and should provide more security.
> In reality the realm of possible interpretation is expanded too.
> 
>>
>> I hope you understand it is quite a serious statement and requires
>> some evidence.
>>
>> The copyright status for code in Org's code is very clear, and I think
>> this is also the case for the copyright status of the rest of Emacs.
>> I sometimes get impatient when I have to wait for the FSF Copyright
>> Clerk to handle new copyright assignments for a new contributor, but
>> I know he has a lot of work and he's doing a great job.
>>
> 
> To know the copyright status as such --as assignments may differ-- you
> must read assignment by assignment, evaluate and understand the diffs
> correctly -
> which is absurd as IMHO the whole CA arts.
> 
> BTW German law --Urheberrechtsgesetz-- for example declares non-valid
> such copyright assignments - even if signed.
> Will a US-court accept CA from a German, when german law declares CA
> possible?

Your English is so good that I can't tell whether you are a native
speaker or not. Did you mean to write "if (wenn) German law declares CA
IMpossible"? I'm sure the FSF's lawyers know about the status of German
law, don't they? In any case, donative assignments are so legally thorny
that any discussion of them should probably be limited to private
communication with RMS or between/among the FSF's lawyers in camera.

> 
> Read Article 32
> Equitable remuneration
> 
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0157
> 
> I.e. GPL is not affected, as "anyone" matches. Will the FSF count as
> "anyone"?

It will certainly count under U.S. law now that Microsoft enjoys the use
of a virtual mind and soul (i.e. is even more of a person than any
corporation was under the personification doctrine established after the
Civil War). It can now have political opinions an can spend virtually
unlimited amounts of money to make those opinions heard.

Sorry, off topic but interesting.

Ed

> 
> Best,
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
>