This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: SGI releases IA64 C C++ and F90 compiler under GPL
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: SGI releases IA64 C C++ and F90 compiler under GPL
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Date: Sun, 21 May 00 21:07:54 EDT
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pthomas at suse dot de, torvalds at transmeta dot com
No. I'm sure I've offended RMS in the past, and I'm sure I will again
in the future. However, since I want to continue to contribute my code
and get it in GCC distributions, I play by the set of rules RMS has set
up for GNU software and GCC in particular.
I should say that I agree with those rules. The reason is simply: you
want to be able to say who the copyright holder is for a program. You
want to say that "GCC is copyrighted by X" not "GCC is copyrighted by
X1, X2, X3, ...". It's true that adding *one* more copyright holder won't
make things that much more complex, but once you make one exception it's
hard to not keep making them.