Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:53:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > What FSF got was irrevocable assignment of all ownership.  The content of the files doesn't matter
> > to the owner of the legal rights to that content.  As assignee, FSF owns the content of those
> > rights-assigned files no matter what the assigner legitimately put into them as work for hire.
> 
> I think you have big misunderstanding how copyright works.  FSF
> got files at some specific time (in particular due to initial
> assignment).  Changes to those file also are covered by
> copyright, you can distribute changed files only by agreement
> of _all_ copyright owners,

  I think that you have a big misunderstanding of how irrevocable assignment works.

> in this case Ada Core(additions)

  When these “additions” are edits to files to which the rights to copy have been irrevocably assigned to FSF, then these are derivative works, whose ability to copy are governed by the GMGPL, even for AdaCore to copy, because their or NYU's irrevocable assignment disowned all ownership (hence the word assignment) forever (hence the word irrevocable).

> and
> FSF (base version).

The true base version of the most important files were at NYU, as governed by the Air Force contract for Ada9X Project than in exchange for receiving $3 million reportedly required assigning all rights to copy to FSF.

>  Do not be fooled by copyright statements
> in files: copyright exists

 i.e., copyright exists in 1992 & 1993 at NYU for the most interesting files in GNAT without copyright notices, but now that those files have copyright notices, those notices and their referenced licensing are in full effect, superseding any historical implicit lack of notices in prior editions of the work.  Precisely where in United States statutory law or the ratified treaties does it say otherwise?

> even if there is no explicit
> statement in files.
> ... 
> Concerning FSF, I think that they know what Ada Core
> is doing and accept that.

I would enjoy hearing RMS's statements regarding that topic of being fully aware.

>  I personaly think that
> Ada Core is subverting GPL, but apparently FSF
> either thinks that what Ada Core is doing is right or
> decided to compromise to have a contributor.

I would enjoy hearing RMS's statements regarding that topic of compromising software freedom, for going along to get along.