Libreboot Drama Continues, GNU Might Keep The Project

[starshipeleven]

1) Assigning/transferring copyright is invalid in many countries of the world (e.g. in my country), hence the piece of paper FSF asks you to sign as a contributor may be worthless.

Wait a sec, so how do they deal with publishing books, or other original works (music, media and such)?
I was under the impression that it required at least a partial copyright transfer, otherwise only the author has the rights to copy and distribute the work.

2) FSF promises you $1 for the transfer of copyright, but fails to pay. This also makes the agreement void in many countries.

Do they? I was under the impression that they don't offer to pay you at all. Can you link something about this?

[Donacdum]

That's a man baby

[Donacdum]

One of my teachers at school once said something very true:

"Those who take a very strong vocal dislike to homosexuality tend to be people who see the trait in themselves. Normally no-one spends all that much time thinking about other people's tastes and interests."

there's something you will eventually have to figure out, just because you aren't confrontative on bullshit views some women have it doesn't mean they are going to have sex with you

[nils_]

But the question lingers:

Quid pro quo?

Who benefits from it?

I think you meant to write "cui bono".

[starshipeleven]

I meant in the sense of cult mentality, not literally,

Well, if Leah has transferred copyright to FSF, then she lost control over the project and it's not her call anymore if Libreboot can leave GNU. They are calling her "maintainer" for a reason.
Also as others on the mailing list said the logo and name of Libreboot aren't registered trademarks (or contain her name) so she has no control over them either.

[icewater]

At this point I consider Leah Rowe a proprietary blob that needs to be removed from the Libreboot project.

[bridgman]

Wait a sec, so how do they deal with publishing books, or other original works (music, media and such)?
I was under the impression that it required at least a partial copyright transfer, otherwise only the author has the rights to copy and distribute the work.

My understanding is that there are no restrictions on licensing others to use your works; you just are not able to give up your own rights.

Something like that anyways... haven't looked at it for almost a decade.

[bridgman]

The forum SW is getting even more strange... twice now I edited the previous post, hit <save>, and the display went back to showing previous contents.

[Michael]

The forum SW is getting even more strange... twice now I edited the previous post, hit <save>, and the display went back to showing previous contents.

there is a new vbulletin upgrade available... will be trying it out either today or next weekend to hopefully fix the oddness lately.

[starshipeleven]

My understanding is that there are no restrictions on licensing others to use your works; you just are not able to give up your own rights. Something like that...

I'm not sure. Most such contracts are also exclusives, you cannot go to an editor, publish something, then go to another and publish again.
Same for most movies or TV series, distribution contracts also have "worldwide exclusives" or "nationwide exclusives" or whatever, where the contract does not allow the copyright holder (the movie producers) to sell the media to others in the world or nation or whatever. Of course prices vary accordingly.

IANAL so I just don't know if this happens because you actually transferred rights to them, or because you make an agreement where you agree to not do that in exchange of money.