Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129632AbQKFAaY>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:30:24 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S129736AbQKFAaO>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:30:14 -0500
Received: from p3EE0A434.dip.t-dialin.net ([62.224.164.52]:27641 "EHLO fuji")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S129632AbQKFAaE>;
	Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:30:04 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:05:00 +0100
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg@goof.com>
To: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux?
Message-ID: <20001106010500.E14126@fuji.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <E13s11X-0004TQ-00@the-village.bc.nu> <3A05C888.7558E0F0@Rikers.org> <20001105160637.Z6207@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20001105234225.J443@cerebro.laendle> <3A05E7A1.C97B85D9@Rikers.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3A05E7A1.C97B85D9@Rikers.org>; from Tim@Rikers.org on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 04:05:05PM -0700
X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.17 (root@fuji) (gcc version pgcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release)) 
X-Copyright: copyright 2000 Marc Alexander Lehmann - all rights reserved
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 04:05:05PM -0700, Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org> wrote:
> > Which can not and will not happen.
> 
> I understand "will not", but "can not"? There is nothing stopping

As I explained three lines below the mail, if you care to read.

> would include copyrights assigned to FSF and other parties. Let's say
> this happens and a new sgigcc source base is created. Presumably then

We recently saw that creating a new, probably incompatible compiler is a
very bad thing. If sgi would split the compiler that would be a problem
for the community at large.

> any defense of gcc code could be met with the argument that the code
> used came from sgigcc

YANAL and IANAL, but to defend code you must own it or have authored it.
Since the FSF would, in your example, neither own the code nor be the
author of it they couldn't defend that version of gcc.

> This being the case what has the FSD gained by

Well, simply this is _not_ the case ;)

> In short, I do not see any enforceable advantages to the current FSF

You don't. Lawyers do (certainly the FSD lawyer does), and probably the
law does, also ;)

> Statements above are my own, and I am not a lawyer.

Yepp.

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@opengroup.org |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/