> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:09 AM
> From: "Paul Smith" <p...@mad-scientist.net>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> > of any change in license.
> >
> > Quoting Jason Merrill:
> >
> > "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> > to be a GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from
> > anyone."
>
> It depends on what you mean by "move to it".
>
> It's true that anyone could redistribute it under GPLv4.
>
> What's not true is that you can *change the license*. For example you
> can't change the current wording of the license from "GPL version 3 or
> later" to "GPL version 4 or later". Or make any other changes to the
> license, without collecting approval from all copyright holders.
>
> So, if there should be some issue with GPLv3 so that you really want to
> stop using it (maybe a court case is decided which negates a
> significant element of GPLv3 and GPLv4 is released to address the
> issue), it won't be possible to do that easily.
>
> Someone else mentioned that new code could be released only under that
> license so that in effect the entirety of the codebase becomes GPLv4+.
>
> I'm not sure about that. Doing that for brand new files that were
> created solely by one person who wanted to use GPLv4 or later only
> would work I suppose. But adding changes to an existing file that was
> GPLv3+ and saying that these new changes are GPLv4+ would be pretty
> gross. You might have to list both licenses in these files, since you
> can't change the previously-in-use license unless you get agreement
> from the FSF, who currently holds the license, plus anyone else who
> changed the file since the assignment was relaxed.
You can actually re-license with another compatible license.
GPLv3+ would allow you to re-license the code as GPLv4+
You do not have to keep all the previous licenses because the intention of the
gpl is to give back to users those rights which copyright would otherwise
withold.
> Personally I think that while assignment is a PITA and I wish it were
> easier, it is extremely valuable and provides a lot of flexibility, and
> shouldn't be abandoned without very, VERY careful consideration.
>
> And, that decision and those considerations should be documented and
> the responses to the issues raised here published for everyone to see.
>
----- Christopher Dimech
Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.
In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this
struggle yours as well !
https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/
