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/msg00000.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
