> > As far as I remember the FSF didn't accept the code (long time
> > ago now) because they didn't like the way the gcc backend was
> > decoupled from the rest of the compiler (avoiding the tainting
> > of all the rest of the M3 sources with the license).
>
> Yes. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-06/msg00010.html>.
there's no evidence in that thread that RMS ever ruled on the question,
it's just suppositions as to how things probably would go. and tim mann
is wrong on two critical points: there is forward-compatibility between
M3's BSD-like license and the GPL, just not backward-compatibility. what
i mean by that is, there is nothing in the M3 license which would prohibit
a code fork where the forked code had the M3 license AND the GPL. so, if
FSF wanted M3 they could slap their own license on top of the M3 license
and thus control the rights to their copy.
i think it's time to try again, but i'd like to be the one to try, since
i've fought license wars before and i seem to have a good grasp of the
fine points. but before anyone tries, can we rename the file we want to
donate to FSF, and rename the functionality? if all it's doing it
offering a pipe to the backend, then it's language-independent and not
part of the M3 system at all. can we call it "pipe_to_backend.c" or
something like that? what i'd like to do is reduce the number of
questions posed by the donation down to: does FSF want this functionality
in their compiler?
i also note that in a post-EGCS world, there are more voices than RMS's
who would weigh in on these questions.
--
Paul Vixie
|
