Wired Article on the GPL

[Ian Grigg]

> B. Are J + S in breach of contract? J + S sign contractual agreement with M
> to transfer 'all rights, if any' to M. This means exclusive copyright. But
> so long as the GPL perpetuates further redistribution, it is possible that
> M has not obtained 'all rights, if any'.

"All available rights, if any, with assignee to determine
fitness for purpose" is the way I read the expression.  But,
the discussion is moot, need to refer to the contract assigning
aforementioned rights, a wired article is hardly likely to be
sufficient.

> For my part, I do not understand how the question of assignment of rights
> to FSF fits into the picture. ( as reported in the wired.com article)
> Surely if J and S has assigned copyright to FSF, then it is impossible for
> them to contract with M at all? I wonder if M would have sought to buy the
> copyright from FSF in event there was such an assignment.

It seems like a nonsense to me.  It wouldn't have changed the fact
that the authors would be harrassed, and it wouldn't have changed
their decision to sign over "All rights, if any."  Unless they
are referring to the GPL issuance, which is definately nonsense,
as the GPL - or any licence - is between the owner and the user,
not the FSF.  Unless they indicated they had assigned rights over
to FSF, in which case, fine, the rights might not have made it, and
we are back to "All rights, if any" being assigned to Mattel.

iang