> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 6:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" <giac...@tesio.it>
> To: "Jason Merrill" <ja...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" <ja...@redhat.com>, "gcc Mailing List" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> > "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> > URL"?
>
> Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
>
> > What return on their time can they reasonably expect?
>
> Money.
>
> You are overly underestimating how long in takes to get a sentence over the
> world.
> In Italy it could literally take a decade.
>
> Also there is ALWAYS uncertaintly when in comes to courts.
What me strive for is for the Gpl to became irrelevant. Whan there are
no arguments against copyleft.
>
> That's why in most cases, these matters do not reach a sentence.
>
> For most corporations over the world it's way cheaper to pay the "troll",
> be him right or wrong.
>
>
> With the previous CA policy, this could not happen.
>
> That's why it should be managed like a major breaking change.
>
>
> > The Linux kernel community adopted the GPL3 curing process ("GPL
> > cooperation commitment") as a remedy for the troll problem. Do you
> > think this was a pointless exercise?
>
> At best, it's more a form risk mitigation to the corporate needs of the first
> world
> than a solution to the "copyright troll" problem.
>
> But the fact is that GCC was completely unaffected with the previous policy.
>
> And I'm not even arguing agaist the new one!
>
> I'm just asking to clearly mark with a new version its application.
>
> In a few years, as the existing versions will be deprecated, the new policy
> will
> become the only one, but at least users will have had time to assess their
> business with GCC.
>
>
> > > And also because there are many fewer redistributors of GCC, and
> > they are
> > > in the business of distributing software.
> > >
> > > And why GCC redistribution should be discouraged?
> > >
> >
> > It shouldn't! My point is that businesses redistributing GCC are such
> > that compliance with the GPL is natural for them, unlike, say,
> > manufacturers of smart toasters running Linux.
>
> Oh, I misunderstood what you meant, sorry.
>
> Well, maybe not a toaster, but imagine a cheap low-energy eink-based
> zen-mode writing/programming machine running gcc-emacs as sole program.
>
> Why such kind of gcc-distribution business should be discouraged by these
> legal issues?
>
> Yes, it's an hypothetical example, but you know... Twitter is a business too:
> anything can happen, however unpredictable.
>
> That's why I think the Steering Committee should be very careful while
> changing the legal framework of GCC.
>
>
> Giacomo
>
