Quoting Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:34:39 -0400, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
While a preamble is indeed a good idea the lack thereof doesn't harm the copyright or the license with which the package is distributed. The copyright is owned by the producer of the code and the license allows the copyright holder to give you the right to use it. It can also be contrived that since I freely gave the code that is covered by my copyright to Drupal that I also transferred the copyright to Drupal.
Not true, unless you explicitly signed a document stating that you transfered copyright ownership to Dries Buytaert. Unless I missed it, there is no such automatic transfer involved in committing to CVS. (Some projects do have that, but not Drupal.)
The "GPL means someone else owns my code now" line is a lie. Period. They can *use* your code, and can even redistribute it however they want as long as they do so under the GPL, but ownership remains with you until you legally turn it over to someone else.
I said that it can be contrived to mean; meaning that some court *could* (not would) give Drupal that right. Copyright law changes with each courts interpretation. FSF forces the issue and makes you and everyone else that owns you sign a document for you to contribute code that is distributed by the FSF just to make it clear that FSF owns the copyright. Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/