🚀 go-pugleaf

tromey@klab.caltech.edu (Tom Tromey) writes:
>But I must admit, this requirement is a stumper to me.  Could anyone
>explain why the GPL is not enough?  I thought the whole point of the
>GPL was to ensure that subsequent changes were free... so then why
>this extra step?

Let's suppose some smart lawyer pokes a hole in the GPL, but there's a
fix, so GPL version 3 could avoid the problem.  If FSF is the sole
owner, they can issue the new release under a new copyright with no
problem.  If ten zillion people each own a copyright to a different
little piece, this is not possible.  There are other situations where
multiple owners could be a problem as well: FSF could grant special
exceptions to the GPL if they want to *if* they are the sole owner.
So if you do a port of gcc to a new platform and you want FSF to
integrate it into the official gcc, they won't do it unless you
assign it to them.


-- 
-- Joe Buck 	<jbuck@synopsys.com>	(not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729