On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:11 AM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such > > change > > > > for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC > > 11. > > > > > > > > > > That is how I was thinking of the change, but I agree that it needs > > > clarification. > > > > I don't think this is very practical - we'd need to check each and > > every commit before considering backporting fixes, no? > > I'm a bit surprised: aren't such commits reviewed anyway on backport? > > Even if they apply smoothly, they could introduce nasty bugs if applied > blindly. > > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the development > branch already? > > > > > "tainted" > > Sad word choice, tbh. > > Given that such major development decision was not discussed here but > Imposed unilateraly by the Steering Committee, a bit of forewarning would be > much more professional. > > Not because the new version are somehow "tainted" but because the many > different > users of GCC around the world deserve a bit more respect, imho. > > > This is not a minor change and should not be introduced in minor versions. > > It's a breaking change, after all.
It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3). It's not reverting the existing copyrights and assignments. As Eben Moglen stated in the ZDNet article: "the FSF will long remain the preponderant copyright holder in GCC and related projects... No downstream user, modifier or redistributor of GCC is facing any changes whatsoever." The break mostly is psychological, not technical or legal. Thanks, David
