3 ms·
This doesn't change anything for anybody except the copyright holder (who, if you've signed a copyright assignment statement, is not you). They're allowing cont
by freeone3000 5y ago
This doesn't change anything for anybody except the copyright holder (who, if you've signed a copyright assignment statement, is not you). They're allowing contributors to maintain copyright over code submitted to GNU projects, and if you want to assign copyright to the FSF, you still can. The COS (a form of CLA) still grants the FSF the right to redistribute the code under GPLv3, so it doesn't affect users, either. I don't really know what a public consultation would have done here.
- deng 5y agoJust follow the thread in the gcc mailing list. There are loads of questions now which need to be answered, just to name a few: - Can the steering committee make that decision? - Can the code be still easily(!) re-licensed to a possible GPLv4? - How can code later be re-licensed to GPL with runtime library exception or to LGPL? - Who should be named as copyright holder? It might very well be that all these questions can be easily answered, but that should have happened before.
- nullc 5y agoBecause almost always the employer owns their employees work product, you're going to end up with large swaths of GCC code having various megacorps being the exclusive copyright holder; potentially creating even more opportunities for Oracle v. Google like litigation over compliance minutia regarding code that is supposed to be freely available.