From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [78.133.224.34]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C8F394741A for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:20:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 53C8F394741A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1BF4992009C; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:20:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1898692009B; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:20:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:20:38 +0200 (CEST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: DJ Delorie cc: Paul Koning , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1162.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:20:41 -0000 On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote: > > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > > the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) > > any later version. > > > > To me that means the recipient of the software can relicense it under > > a later license. It doesn't say to me that the original distribution > > can do so. > > I've never read it that way. To me it says "a recipient may > redistribute it under terms of a newer license, but the license remains > v3+ even if they do" - we're giving the recipient a choice of actions, > but not power to relicense. My interpretation of this would be for modifications rather than original sources, so v3+ applies to unmodified sources (for obvious reasons, given that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a copyright holder I can release my modifications say under v4 or v4+. It is unclear to me if the newer licence will then "stick" to the rest of the sources, but I suspect it will. A copyright assignment made to FSF (or another legal entity) prevents this complication from happening. Maciej