On 29/11/2007, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately, that's an area that the FSF wants tight control over; > they would be especially cheesed off if we linked to a consultant's page > and the consultant also advertised his/her ability to support proprietary > compiler development.
Well, I don't get why we could not require the same. I am just talking about taking the subset of that page that is GCC specific and put it on its own page in our webserver. And perhaps give more relevance to those companies that are actively involved in GCC developement. I think companies like CodeSourcery should be up in the list (and again, I don't plan to provide commercial support or getting hired by any company, I just think it is fair and a service to our users). > But the page on fsf.org is outdated and mostly-useless; people are > unlikely to find it. It should be possible to do something better and > still meet the FSF's requirements (which mainly are that FSF sites don't > promote proprietary software or link to pages that do). It is not only that the page is difficult to find and outdated. It also covers non-GCC stuff and it is too large and I doesn't give preference to companies that contribute regularly to GCC. In our list, companies like Codesourcery would be close to the top of the list. We could tell the FSF that we will check the companies (or individuals) webpages before adding them to the list and if someone breaks the requirements afterwards, we will delete it. Cheers, Manu
