Hi, On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 02:19:12PM +0200, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> writes: > > > I don't mind that, but I also think the Hurd is not a tactical FSF asset > > anymore that needs to be kept under tight control. The FSF has enough > > copyright in the Hurd that it can enforce it whenever it likes, even if > > other people's copyrighted code (as is already the case with the pfinet > > I wouldn’t be so sure about that. > > 1. Without copyright assignment of all code involved, enforcement > becomes much harder.
I don't think "much harder" can be quantified in a meaningful way, seeing how parts of the Hurd aren't under the FSF copyright at this point, anyway. > 2. The Hurt still provides capabilities other OS’es don’t — while > maintaining POSIX compatibility. We’ve seen audacity basically > being taken over by a company in the past months, so the danger of > losing Hurd to proprietarization rather got bigger than smaller. Nobody proposes that the FSF relicenses the Hurd to a non-copyleft license before relinquishing the copyright assignment mandate, so I don't see how the Hurd continueing to be under a GPLv2+ license will ever be able to be taken proprietary. I'm not going to respond further on this thread, this is starting to get off-topic really quick and if there are further things to be discussed, gnu-system-discuss or whatever other mailing list is likely the better place. Michael
