[M3devel] licensing (gcc patches)

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
I think as is pointed out original developers copyright holders must be at the public domain as they are not present anymore and nobody seems to reclaim if there is any wanting to hold them as they don't have nobody who uses it as far as we know. So it probably needs to be a process of release of this holders to the public domain and especially the owners of the linked code would not regret having the hold as far as they return what they did to the originals which I believe don't or wouldn't hesitate to receive. If they do hesitate to receive they would be admitting they are not anymore owners of it and the changes would and shall be returned to somebody who will receive for them as to allow any wanting to do changes. 
I don't think FSF would accept to do that procedure.
What shall we do then? 

--- El lun, 5/7/10, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

> De: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] licensing (gcc patches)
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: lunes, 5 de julio, 2010 10:25
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 12:49:18PM
> +0000, Jay K wrote:
> > 
> > Yes parse.c is a new file added to gcc and contains
> the bulk of our work on gcc.
> > There are some other small files and small diffs, but
> parse.c is really it.
> > 
> > parse.c: the name seems wrong, but if you consider
> that from gcc's point of view,
> > we are a front end, then it makes sense. As a front
> end to gcc, our "source language"
> > is very odd, it is binary files encoding the sequence
> of function calls the "actual"
> > frontend would have me to an "actual" backend.
> 
> I like that technique.  It's similar to the
> intermediate code the coq 
> proof checker produces after it's proved a theorem -- a
> file 
> coding the sequence of calls to the elementary proof rules
> that turned 
> out to be actually needed to get to the conclusion. 
> It stores these 
> files in a library, so it can read them in later and
> reprove the theorem 
> quickly in case you need it again.  It beats
> cryptographic signatures 
> for security.
> 
> I wonder if the FSF gang would look at parse.c differently
> if there were 
> other compilers, GPLed ones, that use your back end.
> 
> -- hendrik
>