On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:09:37 -0400, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 4/10/2016 2:55 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: >> That's a project management/governance issue independent of choice of >> license model. > > Imposing quality controls on contributions to a GPL-protected work adds > restrictions to how recipients distribute modifications to that work. > This is expressly prohibited by the GPL. Absurd as it sounds, the GPL's > terms really do prevent RMS from imposing discipline on his volunteer > coders because they themselves are recipients of free (as in FSF) > software. So yes, the GCC governance issues actually do derive from the > license.
What particular clause of the GPL forbids a distributor from doing QA on what s/he distributes? Licensing something under the GPL does not require *you*, the package maintainer, to accept contributions. It does mean that you can't impose quality controls on what someone else downstream does, but package maintainers -- and downstream distributors -- have every right to impose quality controls on what they _themselves_ distribute. >> But the Linux kernel is also GPL-licensed, and it doesn't suffer from >> those problems. > > That's because Linus Torvalds rejects RMS's philosophy. He imposes > discipline and quality controls on contributions to the kernel despite > this being a technical violation of the GPL's terms. Again, I'd like to know exactly what caluse of the GPL forbids you from imposing discipline and quality control on your own process? -- Robert Krawitz <[email protected]> *** MIT Engineers A Proud Tradition http://mitathletics.com *** Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- http://ProgFree.org Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
