From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Subject: Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)
Date: 1997/07/03
Message-ID: <5ph2sp$qdg$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254355345
References: <33B2B5C8.41A0@does.not.exist.com> <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
 <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net> <5p1s2l$2a2$1@news.nyu.edu>
Organization: NovaNET Learning, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>GCC is not "multi-source".  All code to be included in GCC must have
>its copyright transferred to the FSF.

Someone must have illegally modified all the source versions of GCC
I've seen, then, because they all claim that the standard GPL applies
to them.  The GPL does NOT require that copyright be transferred to the
FSF. There's a HUGE difference between something being licensed under
the GPL and something being owned by the FSF.

If I make a derivative work and distribute it (such distribution being under
the GPL), the code that I contributed is still copyright by me, and I may
use that portion of code that is wholly mine without restriction. If the
rest of GCC is copyright by the FSF, they can not give permission for MY
code to be used in any way that is not consistent with the GPL. Now, the FSF
may well refuse to distribute modifications to GCC that are not assigned to
them; that doesn't stop me from creating my own distribution of it.