From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13214 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2010 12:18:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 13202 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2010 12:18:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:18:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1D62BAB51; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vYx54ga91oc5; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FF22BAB22; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2C877E.5070801@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:18:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Kenner CC: mark@codesourcery.com, burnus@net-b.de, corbet@lwn.net, dje.gcc@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gerald@pfeifer.com, iant@google.com, ja_walker@sbcglobal.net, lopezibanez@gmail.com, nightstrike@gmail.com Subject: Re: Patch pinging References: <4C271A9B.4030503@net-b.de> <11006291124.AA07060@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20100629163525.6e12f940@bike.lwn.net> <4C2C2605.60904@c odesourcery.com> <11007011158.AA03151@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: <11007011158.AA03151@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed 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/msg00008.txt.bz2 Richard Kenner wrote: >> 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. > > I disagree. From what I see of the industry and its practices, I think the > risk of an attack on Free Software due to lack of providence issues is > INCREASING, not decreasing. As FLOSS software makes more and more inroads > into the commercial world, proprietary software companies will feel more > and more threatened and the way most companies react to threats nowadays is > via legal attacks. We've had companies (e.g., SCO) in the past who > transitioned from being software companies to legal firms. It would not > surprise me at all if one or more compiler companies did something similar > in the next decade. I fully agree with Richard on this point