On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > Lets change the subject now that this is about GCC and the FSF. > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc > wrote: > > Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to > > become > > a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with > > mass > > resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from > > being > > associated with either of them. > > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062 > > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely. > > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC > > has > > made a difference? > > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when > the > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company) > anymore.
This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in the code. It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on the code. Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing work to that other non-profit. That way there would be only two copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to the FSF; if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems. > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of > every > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it. Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops. (Or we could start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort). In case it's not clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a mistake to use it for software documentation. > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual > > copyright holders? > > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation > with > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because > almost no individual has the means to take up a case. Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF. > > Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork > > of > > GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would > > prefer > > to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code. > > And > > if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret > > optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to > > violate > > the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was > > a > > success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an > > easier option. > > I admit that the only way proprietary compiler writers can compete > with GCC is by producing a lax-permissive licensed compiler is an odd > way to win for Free Software. > But we should still make sure that GCC > itself makes it so that users can actually get the sources of the > compiler they are using and not just some sources that might or might > not correspond to the binary they are using. Making sure that the > code > reaches actual users and not just some corporate hackers to create a > proprietary compiler is what counts IMHO. And using strong copyleft > and having a shared copyright pool of code held by an entity that can > enforce that is still necessary IMHO. > > > Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU? It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists. I agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post: http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things: - the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc, glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Tools Cauldron - anything hosted under the gnu.org domain (including this mailing list) - things that have been blessed by RMS with the "GNU" title for adhering to his own terms of ideological correctness - an attempt to reimplement what in the 1980s passed for state-of-the- art - an idea, or vision, either political, or technological, or some blend of both - an expansive definition for whenever RMS wants to claim that other people's work is somehow "GNU/Linux" - various other definitions, I'm sure > I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it > is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to > still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a > similar > discussion right now > https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/ For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a self-appointed "chief GNUisance". I hope the FSF can be saved, since it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move. My opinions, not my employer's, as usual. Dave
