From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21905 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2010 05:22:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 21896 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2010 05:22:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:22:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 28711 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2010 05:22:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.104?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Jul 2010 05:22:12 -0000 Message-ID: <4C2C2605.60904@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:22:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lance Taylor CC: Jonathan Corbet , NightStrike , Richard Kenner , burnus@net-b.de, dje.gcc@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gerald@pfeifer.com, ja_walker@sbcglobal.net, lopezibanez@gmail.com Subject: Re: Patch pinging References: <4C0D9979.90603@sbcglobal.net> <4C271A9B.4030503@net-b.de> <11006291124.AA07060@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20100629163525.6e12f940@bike.lwn.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Thanks for the info. So there is now a provenance, which is the point: > there is a more-or-less real person associated with each contribution. > I certainly would like the FSF to move to a similar model. I agree. I do understand the rationale for the FSF's desire to hold copyright, and have a paper trail. But, at this point, I think that's making it harder to people to participate, and with no real benefit. The FSF is clinging to an outmoded policy due to a single occurrence from long ago. However, I believe that there is nothing we can do about that; I don't imagine that this is something on which RMS or the SFLC would likely move. I think that means that our only pragmatic choice is whether to be an FSF project or not. If we don't want that, then, of course, we could adopt the Linux kernel's rules on contribution instead. (We'd also give up any ability to relicense code going forward (e.g., between GPL and GFDL) since we'd likely have many copyright holders, and no practical hope of getting them all to agree on any change.) But, as long as we do want to be an FSF project, we have to play by the FSF's rules. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713