Hi Jakub, On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for > decades, just look at the source. > > libffi has various copyright holders > include/hsa* has AMD as copyright holder > gcc/go/gofrontend and libgo has The Go Authors as copyright holders > liboffloadmic has mostly Intel as copyright holder > libphobos has mostly Digital Mars (and/or the D Language foundation) > as copyright holder > libquadmath has Sun Microsystems as copyright holder on various parts > libsanitizer has mostly the LLVM authors as copyright holders > zlib has various copyright holders
The simple fact that you have been able to list the copyright holders of the various submodules (as distinct from the rest of GCC under a single FSF copyright) shows the advantage of the previous policy. > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment to > FSF will not really change anything significant. I'm afraid you are being a bit naive here. You just need one individual who decide to act as "copyright troll" years after his contribution has been accepted (things and people change, as you know) to cause demage to some users. You may choose to ignore such risk because it's unlikely to affect your own company, but is it ethical to pose such risk / burden on others? Just to NOT give proper advise, release a major and properly handle backports? Please, remember that the world is huge, diverse and varied and the future is a lot of time! "Anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong!" A professional management of such change in the legal framework of GCC might look a bit annoying in the short term but might save a lot of money and headaches to users in the medium and long term. Giacomo
