John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (since I can't find any others on the gcc mailing lists) is probably
> > that it hasn't been officially contributed with legal papers signing
> > the copyright over to the FSF.
>
> I don't have it here any more; it fell victim to my cleanup with I decided
> I'd go to gcc 2.95 on my workstation & mostly egcs on RHL 5.x, so I can't
> easily check. However, I thought that
> 1 The fact of gcc being GPL means that other authors can't make changes
> and distribute under any other licence.
Sure, according to the GPL, you could include it in GCC. But the FSF
is very wary about making sure that nobody can claim that something
was included by mistake, or that the person who put it under the GPL
didn't have the rights to do so. So for things going into major
FSF-type projects (Emacs, GCC, Guile (I think)) you have to sign over
the copyright.
RMS was burned in the past over this in Emacs, so it's an
understandable concern.
> 2 If there be some reason I'm wrong, then what prevents it being
> reingineered?
Nothing, except that nobody's done it.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
191 days, 24 minutes, 4 seconds till we run away.
Famous last words:
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
