Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "I" == ISO  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

    >> The GPL is a great choice if your project can live with its
    >> implications, and you're comfortable assigning copyright to the
    >> FSF.

    I> Hi, Tim!  Why the "and" above?  I do not think that proper
    I> usage of the GPL implies assigning the copyright to the FSF.  I
    I> would even guess that the GPL would be much less used,
    I> nowadays, if that "and" was required.

François is right.  FSF assignment is often "strongly" encouraged for
GNU projects, which essentially mean they have some official sanction
from GNU.  The FSF wants this because they believe they will be better
able to defend GPL violations for those programs.

But FSF assignment isn't required for GPL covered programs.  In fact,
assigning copyright to the FSF means they could re-release the program
under any license they wanted, even an evil closed license.  After
assignments, they're the copyright holders so they can do whatever
they want (and what they want to do is release under the GPL).  The
saving grace here is that as part of the assignment, the FSF promises
to continue to release the code under the same terms they original
had.  In effect, they promise never to un-GPL any GPL'd assigned code.

-Barry