This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Libgfortran licensing
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Cc: GCC Fortran mailing list <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:50:26 -0700
- Subject: Re: Libgfortran licensing
- References: <4134DDAB.2040406@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <4134F562.5010101@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:02 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
Only the original author(s) of these pieces can determine under what
license they want their contributions distributed. As "we" didn't
write all of them (some were written by Andy Vaught), we cannot decide
unilaterally to change the licensing. If the license does not conform
to the one normally used for run-time library code, and we didn't
write the specific code ourselves, we should recode the functionality.
The purpose of assigning copyright to the FSF is to allow the FSF to
correct goofs like this. If that was done for Fortran, and it should
have been, then the FSF can decide to change it. The right global
rights person that would review this _knows_ if they can without asking
the FSF for permission, and _will_ ask them otherwise.
So, short story long, it is ok to do up the patch and submit it, but it
_must_ be reviewed by the right person. Law in the past has had some
state on this topic, and might be the right person, the SC can ok it as
well. Not that they can, but rather, they know if they can, and won't
if they can't.
All the libfortran maintainers are supposed to know all of this... :-)
so it isn't meant to controversial. In addition, the library
reviewers really should catch this sort of thing _before_ oking work,
not after. :-( It is always more painful after.