On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:12 PM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote:
>
>
> On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > The copyright troll risk is much, much lower for GCC than for Linux.
>
> In an ever changing world, this is very arguable.
>
> Yet I think you will agree that with the previous policy such risk was
> absent.
>
> Thus it's intruduction should be marked (and encapsulated) in a new major
> version.
>
> > First, because GPL3 specifically addresses the over-strict automatic
> > termination rules in GPL2 that copyright trolls leverage.
>
> GPLv3 allows for remediations within 60 since the violation notification,
> but it's unlikely to stop someone who want to monetize his own copyright
> suing a company:
> - first because more often than not such cases are constructed, the
> company were NOT really violating the copyright
> - second because 60 days to get a response from corporates lawyers is
> unrealistic in most of the world.
>
Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
"nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this URL"?
What return on their time can they reasonably expect?
The Linux kernel community adopted the GPL3 curing process ("GPL
cooperation commitment") as a remedy for the troll problem. Do you think
this was a pointless exercise?
> And also because there are many fewer redistributors of GCC, and they are
> in the business of distributing software.
>
> And why GCC redistribution should be discouraged?
>
It shouldn't! My point is that businesses redistributing GCC are such that
compliance with the GPL is natural for them, unlike, say, manufacturers of
smart toasters running Linux.
Why such business should be burden with this risk?
>
> People still redistribute GCC with other free software for money where
> connectivity sucks or is overly expensive.
>
Redistributors already need to comply with the GPL. If they aren't, it's
good to point that out so that they can come into compliance.
Jason
