On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > Richard Kenner wrote: >>> >>> Of course, just I (and others) don't see why they should do it in this >>> case. Delaying a *branch* is different from, say, using a proprietary >>> version control or bug tracking system. >>> >> >> I don't either. Requesting a delay of a *release* on a license issue >> is completely and perfectly understandable, but what that has to do >> with making a *branch* makes absolutely no sense to me. >> > > Agreed. I'll note nobody has really argued that delaying a branch to deal > with a license issue makes any sense. The FSF itself hasn't even stated > reasons for their stance. That may simply be because the issue is expected > to be moot after the weekend meetings. > > What I find most distressing about this whole discussion is the fact that we > have developers who don't seem to grasp that the FSF owns the copyright to > GCC and we are effectively volunteering to work in the FSF's sandbox under > certain rules and guidelines set forth by the FSF.
Maybe this is because every piece of documentation on the GCC project says otherwise?
