1:51 p.m.
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
On Wed, 2021-04-21 at 12:38 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
> I liked having “for the few packages that require it” (again
because
> of
> the widespread belief that all GNU packages require copyright
> assignment). I also feel that the “legal guardian” bit is overrated
> (it’s mostly theoretical AFAIK). But these are minor issues, not a
> blocker for me.
Yes, it is minor and hopefully it is theoretical for most packages, but
if it is needed it is really good to have. This comes from my
experience as GNU Classpath maintainer. As you can imagine when working
on a core library for the Java programming language there are a couple
of tricky questions [*]. The help of the FSF was highly appreciated.
And you can never tell how an alternative history would have unfolded,
but I believe the impact of GNU Classpath has been outsized because we
had the FSF behind us as legal guardian.
[*] One such tricky question only got resolved very recently:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/victory-fair-use-supreme-court-reve...
Yes, I understand you had a very different experience than the rest of us.
Pused as [main 315c7f1] faq: Replace three letter questions with
specific sponsorship question
Great, thank you.
In commit 24308e67c797f6d2aa72f2a7ea982926549f7479 I removed an analogy
of mine that was probably suboptimal.
https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-website/tree/drafts/faq.md
Is everyone OK with the wording?
If there are no objections let’s publish it within a few hours.
Ludo’.