Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)

[kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

In article <5ph2sp$qdg$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>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.

Right.  

>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 that code can be usefull severed from GCC, which is not normally
the case when talking about modifications.

>Now, the FSF may well refuse to distribute modifications to GCC that are not
>assigned to them;

That's exactly what I meant.

The point is that "GCC", as distributed by the FSF, is not a
"multi-source" copyright situation: it's all copyrighted by one
entity: the FSF.