This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Libgfortran licensing
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 Sep 2004 10:23:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: Libgfortran licensing
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <4134DDAB.email@example.com> <4134F562.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4134F8A8.email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Dewar) wrote on 31.08.04 in <4134F8A8.email@example.com>:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> > Doesn't the copyright assignment give the FSF power licence the code as
> > they see fit?
> I don't think so, I think the assignment document guarantees that the
> licensing will be compatible with the GPL.
It doesn't, which is why we have a GFDL (which is certainly not GPL-
compatible) and why I have no assignment.
> You don't want the FSF to
> suddenly be able to make everything proprietary
Well, not proprietary, but they've already demonstrated that relicensing
under non-DFSG-free terms is possible - see the GFDL debate.
> (the original author
> has this capability, but it is deliberately signed away with the
It's strictly the copyright holder who gets to decide this.
> > IIRC libiberty only had problems changing the licence because the code
> > wasn't FSF copyright.
Whereas my memory says the FSF (that is to say, rms) simply didn't want