I'm just thinking of the reason as to why they want to leave GNU...
So I dug around nano-devel mailing list that you referenced earlier, and
found useful references:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-06/msg00119.html
https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?109076
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg0.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00013.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00014.html
So, by reading just the surface of the problem, I can notice that there
seems to be a misunderstanding related to who the copyrights should be
assigned to.
Some people there think that FSF is *demanding* that they assign
copyright to the FSF, when, in reality, they're *recommending*.
*However*, since GNU nano *has* already copyright assigned to the FSF,
this requires that contributors also assign their contributions'
copyright to the FSF, and also with almost all (if not all) the same
paper work needed. As referenced here:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Contributions.html#Contributions
So, *personally* see it this way: They don't need to leave the GNU
project to have their own copyrights back.
As an additional note: Some people there seem to be misunderstanding who
is supposed to enforce a license, because these people think that it can
be the users, but the most powerful and capable part is, actually, the
copyright holder.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
