Hi David, On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is > > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062 > > > > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and > > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets > > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely. > > > > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC > > > has > > > made a difference? > > > > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held > > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and > > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for > > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that > > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when > > the > > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company) > > anymore. > > This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in > the code. It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this > benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on > the code.
Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits. > Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software > non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing > work to that other non-profit. That way there would be only two > copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current > death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to > the FSF; if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems. Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each individual copyright holder on their own. If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved in any action taken on behave of the collective: https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf > > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of > > every > > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because > > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that > > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it. > > Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation > to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the > GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops. (Or we could > start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright > holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort). In case it's not > clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a > mistake to use it for software documentation. Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF? > > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code > > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single > > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual > > > copyright holders? > > > > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you > > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation > > with > > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more > > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel > > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because > > almost no individual has the means to take up a case. > > Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF. It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible. We have to see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back. They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF relationship: https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/ Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation. > It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists. I > agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post: > http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu > > IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things: > - the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc, > glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Tools Cauldron > - anything hosted under the gnu.org domain (including this mailing > list) > - things that have been blessed by RMS with the "GNU" title for > adhering to his own terms of ideological correctness > - an attempt to reimplement what in the 1980s passed for state-of-the- > art > - an idea, or vision, either political, or technological, or some blend > of both > - an expansive definition for whenever RMS wants to claim that other > people's work is somehow "GNU/Linux" > - various other definitions, I'm sure To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract > > I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it > > is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to > > still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a > > similar > > discussion right now > > https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/ > > For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to > build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be > permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a > self-appointed "chief GNUisance". I hope the FSF can be saved, since > it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move. Agreed, Mark
