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: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: SGI releases IA64 C C++ and F90 compiler under GPL
- From: Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:33:43 -0700
- CC: espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr, toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl, GNU Compiler <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: Santa Cruz Operations
- References: <200005221754.KAA19124@kankakee.wrs.com>
Mike Stump wrote:
> > Personally, I would prefer a simpler world, where the FSF would not
> > demand copyright ownership. I have some code (leaner, meaner faster
> > hash-table) which could benefit gcc, which I am quite willing to
> > release under the GPL, but which is also under a BSD license. In
> > short, I can't give it to the FSF.
>
> You must not understand something. This is just plain wrong. If you
> are the owner, you can do this, 100% of the time, without problem.
> The only issue is that bug fixes to the GPLed code cannot necessarily
> be used on the other code, and that bug fixes on the other code, would
> still need FSF copyright assignment.
Then something must be very unclear. The normal, ordinary understanding
of copyright ownership means that the owner of the copyright determines
the usage of the copyrighted material. The owner has the right to license
or not license usage of the material, whether or not the licensee is
the original creator of the work. That is the normal usage of
the term, "owner". Is the FSF using a different meaning for "owner"?
What might it be, and what might be a better list than "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"? :)