> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>>
>> What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU
>> Toolchain Authors" sounds like one, but is it? Or is it just a label for
>> "the set of contributors who have contributed without assigning to FSF"? In
>> other words, who is the owner of such a work, the GTA, or the submitter?
>> I'm guessing the latter.
>>
>> That seems to create a possible future complication. Prior to this change,
>> the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as replacing the
>> GPL 2 license by GPL 3. With the policy change, that would no longer be
>> possible, unless you get the approval of all the copyright holders. This
>> may not be considered a problem, but it does seem like a change.
>>
>> I looked at gcc.gnu.org to find the updated policy. I don't think it's
>> there; the "contribute" page wording still feels like the old policy. Given
>> the change, it would seem rather important to have the implications spelled
>> out in full, and the new rules clearly expressed.
>
> The GNU Toolchain Authors are all of the authors, including those with
> FSF Copyright. All of the authors agree to the existing license,
> which is "...either version 3, or (at your option) any later version."
> If the project chooses to adopt a future update to the GPL, all of
> the authors have given permission through the existing copyright
> assignment or through certification of the DCO to utilize the newer
> license.
>
> Thanks, David
By DCO do you mean the document you linked in your original annoucement? If
yes, could you point out which of the words in that document give the GCC
project permission from the copyright holder to relicense the contributed work?
I do not see those words in the document you linked.
I get the feeling that the current change was rushed and not well considered.
It certainly has that feel. I do not remember discussion of it, I do not see
updated policy documents on the gcc.gnu.org website. The discussion just now
is raising a pile of questions which are being answered with a whole bunch of
different answers, not all consistent with each other. If the change had been
carefully made this would not be happening; there would instead be a known
answer (the outcome of prior discussion) and there would be published policies
that could be pointed to where those answers are explicitly stated.
It's not that I object to the spirit of the change, and I have contributed to a
number of open source projects where there is no copyright assignment so that
isn't a strange thing to me. What concerns me is a disruptive change made with
what seems to me to be inadequate care.
paul
