Hi David, On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > 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.
For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway. Before there was only one, well known no-profit copyright holder. After, there will be MANY copyright holders, just like in Linux. And as you might know, many corporate Linux adopter have been sued for copyright violation by individual copyright holders (often referred as "copyright trolls") and settled the cases out of court for money. > 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." For now and for most of downstream users, Moglen is right. But in the long term, what happens in Linux is likely to happen in GCC too. Introducing such legal risk on users without writing anything in the Changelog an without proper notice has not been much respectful. GCC is one of core components of today's infrastructure. It's used all over the world and in many different way and legal envirnment. > The break mostly is psychological, not technical or legal. Do you mean such change was just introduced to address a psycological issue? I've never listen about such kind of therapy, but I know nothing about psychology. Anyway, to most people it's just a matter of risk assesment. GCC will now come with a new legal risk that was absemt before, thus it should be handled properly, with a proper notice and incapaulated in a new major version. And tbh, it doesn't look such an unreasonable request, after all. Giacomo
