On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:10 AM Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:05:24AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > > > > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered > by > > > > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move > code > > > > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave > > > > only permission to license under the open source license "indicated > in > > > > the file"? > > > > > > Depends on which DCO you uses. Various project use the following DCO, > > > which makes clear you assign permissions under all applicable licenses > > > (this helps if the project uses more than one, possibly incompatible, > > > license and/or is dual licensed): > > > > See above. The issue is if the project wants to change the status of > > a file from GPL to GPL plus exception. It can't do that if there > > was a change to the file made by somebody who did't assign the copyright. > > What's said in the DCO you cite doesn't help. > > Right. The point wasn't so much as "here is the perfect DCO", but more > that the DCO as used for the linux kernel project might not be the > best for the GCC project given that GCC is not really a monolitic > project, but a collection of compiler/runtime modules each with their > own licence/exeception statements. So we might need tweaks for the > specific way we reuse code between modules. Or when using GPLed code > in the GFDLed manual. >
This all seems much more of a theoretical issue than a practical one. We don't reuse code between the compiler and the runtimes, and the runtimes are all either GPL3+GCC Runtime Exception or under a permissive license, so moving code between them isn't a problem. As far as I know, we have never asked the FSF to relicense anything since the GPL3 move except for the target macro documentation strings, which are easily handled by changing them in both places at once. Jason
