As most of you are probably aware, glibc is also discussing whether or not
to remove the copyright assignment mandate to the FSF. I have posted a
comment there regarding that, now available at:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-June/128303.html
… which is supplemented by a
>> Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the development
>> branch already?
>
>I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
adec14811714e22a6c1f7f0199adc05370f0d8b0
96963713f6a648a0ed890450e02ebdd8ff583b14
621ea10ca060ba19ec693aa73b5e29d553cca849
3e5f2425f80aedd00f28235022a2755eb46f310d
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 6:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Jason Merrill"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "gcc Mailing List"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:
Hi Jason,
On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> URL"?
Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
> What return on their time can they
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 07:36 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi NightStrike,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >
> > > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> > >
> >
Hi NightStrike,
On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> >
>
> Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:12 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>
> On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > > to FSF will not really change
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
>
Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will stop
contributing unless the change is made.
>
On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> 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.
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The copyright troll risk is much, much lower for GCC than for Linux.
> First, because GPL3 specifically addresses the over-strict automatic
> termination rules in GPL2 that copyright trolls leverage. And also because
> there are
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> 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
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
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:48:06 +0200 Richard Biener wrote:
> > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the
> > development branch already?
>
> I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
A very good news!
(but should be confirmed by the Steering Committee)
This means that this issue is
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:17:55PM +, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Anyway, to most people it's just a matter of risk assesment.
>
> GCC will now come with a new legal risk that was absemt before, thus
> it should be handled properly, with a proper notice and incapaulated
> in a new major version.
Hi David,
On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > It's a breaking change, after all.
>
> It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3). It's not
> reverting the existing copyrights and assignments.
For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:10 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:11 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I
Hi Richard,
On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such
> change
> > > for
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> >
> > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> > for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
> >
>
> That is how I was
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:50:44 -0400 Daniel Pono Takamori wrote:
> We definitely don't want to see the GCC mailing list derailed into
> discussing this possibly off-topic issue.
To be fair, THIS is the correct mailing list to discuss these
topics, so much that such major policy change
I'm joining this list just briefly to give some feedback and input on this
thread on behalf of Software Freedom Conservancy, since we were mentioned
multiple times in this thread. I suspect any conversation about how
Conservancy and GCC might work together should be off-list or another list,
and
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
>
That is how I was thinking of the change, but I agree that it needs
clarification.
Jason
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:14:15 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Because it makes no sense
A change in the copyright policies and ownership of a project is usually
seen as a very big change, so much that usually the project change its
whole name, not just its major version.
> doing a GCC release is
On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 04:07:07PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:02:16 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > > Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that
> > > only includes changes under FSF
Hi Jakub,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:02:16 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that
> > only includes changes under FSF copyright, possibly deferring the
> > introduction of non-fsf
On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General
Hello GCC developers,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:00:06 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:18 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > > holder for GCC could we please find
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:10 AM Mark Wielaard 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
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> > that role and helps us as a
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
> >
On 6/1/2021 5:22 PM, Eric Gallager via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:02 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:02 AM David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to be developed,
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Authors" should not
include a date - that's following the
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>>> Inc." and/or "The GNU
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> My interpretation of this would be for modifications rather than original
> sources, so v3+ applies to unmodified sources (for obvious reasons, given
> that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a
> copyright holder I can release my
But GPL3 has been a good license for GCC; giving up the theoretical ability
to change the license (other than to a later GPL) does not seem like a
significant loss.
That will cause trouble incorperating code or documentation snippets
from the code base into the GCC manual; which is not
> So that cannot be the rationale for this.
I do not want to contribute my work to a project that requires FSF
copyright assignment to the rest of the project, even if it wouldn't
be required for (some of) my own contributions. In any case,
historically libstdc++ *does* require an assignment. If
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > It is a real problem. As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> > removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> > because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> > person and who I
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> > any later version.
> >
> > To me that
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> of any change in license.
>
> Quoting Jason Merrill:
>
> "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> to be a GPL v4, we could move
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> > Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> What does that mean? FSF is a well
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc
wrote:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
>From the GCC mission statement:
- Other components
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> That seems to create a possible future complication. Prior to this
> change, the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as
> replacing the GPL 2 license by GPL 3. With the policy change, that
> would no longer be possible,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:14 AM Jose E. Marchesi
wrote:
>
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
Paul Koning via Gcc writes:
>> GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed to be a
>> GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from anyone.
>
> I don't think that is what the license says. It says:
>
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
"Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc" writes:
>> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> an autonomous project.
>>
>> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> will
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:25:16AM -0400, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> | From: Mark Wielaard
>>
>> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
>> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>>
>> Agreed. I also agree with the
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Mark Wielaard
>
> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>
> Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
>
> (Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have
> > 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
| From: Mark Wielaard
| This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
| Why was there no public discussion on this?
Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
(Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contributed to other
copylefted code bases.)
It is important that the pool
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
That is true for all GNU project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 16:24 +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU Toolchain
Authors" sounds like
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:15 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the
Hi David,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
>
* David Edelsohn via Gcc:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
66 matches
Mail list logo
