From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
To: Tim@Rikers.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux?
Date: 05 Nov 2000 16:34:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ylu29mey6f.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa.fvk85sv.1oigpiv@ifi.uio.no> <fa.cq7bdsv.gggbio@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: Tim Riker's message of "Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:11:42 GMT"
Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org> writes:
> I understand "will not", but "can not"? There is nothing stopping
> anyone, let's say SGI for example, from branching a separate gcc which
> would include copyrights assigned to FSF and other parties. Let's say
> this happens and a new sgigcc source base is created. Presumably then
> any defense of gcc code could be met with the argument that the code
> used came from sgigcc. This being the case what has the FSD gained by
> the current policy?
I'm unclear on how you're defining your terms, but were someone to have
violated the GPL license on gcc, I don't understand how the existence of
sgigcc would allow them to mount a defense. The point of the copyright
assignments is to make the copyright holder clear for legal purposes in
the event of an attempt to violate the license. You *seem* to be saying
that somehow one could claim that gcc code wasn't actually owned by the
FSF because it might have come from sgigcc (?), but of course that
wouldn't be the case because all gcc code has copyright assignments.
> I suppose that this is even the case today as one could argue that code
> came from intel-gcc if they used the Intel patches for ia64 or any other
> non-FSF copyrighted patches including patches made by the same company
> that the FSD might be in legal action with.
> In short, I do not see any enforceable advantages to the current FSF
> policies.
I can see a whole bunch of advantages, and I'm afraid that your paragraphs
above don't make any semantic sense to me. Could you please clarify what
you mean?
I think that the copyright assignment requirement is to some degree legal
paranoia; sure, it's not *necessary* under copyright law, and in theory
one could successfully defend the license without it. But I can also very
readily believe the advice of lawyers on the subject, namely that
enforcement of the copyright is significantly easier in real court if one
entity owns all of the rights.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-06 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.fvk85sv.1oigpiv@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.cq7bdsv.gggbio@ifi.uio.no>
2000-11-06 0:34 ` Russ Allbery [this message]
2000-11-06 1:01 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-06 23:14 ` Adam Sampson
2000-11-04 5:34 non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Aaron Sethman
2000-11-04 9:18 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-04 10:58 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 21:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-05 21:18 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 22:42 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-05 23:05 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-06 0:05 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-06 8:53 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-05 23:26 ` Ion Badulescu
2000-11-06 6:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2000-11-05 22:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:45 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-04 12:20 ` Kai Henningsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-11-04 4:25 Bryan Sparks
2000-11-02 21:06 non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-02 21:21 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:04 non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:23 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:27 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:41 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:43 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 7:21 ` Gábor Lénárt
2000-11-04 11:39 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 18:55 non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 19:18 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 19:17 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 20:00 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 22:23 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-02 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-03 22:02 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ylu29mey6f.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu \
--to=rra@stanford.edu \
--cc=Tim@Rikers.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox