On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Richard Kenner <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >> but FSF still owned the copyright of the codes of EGCS; so it wasn't >> reuniting with FSF interfering with technical decisions. > > I don't follow. There's a difference between working on code whose > copyright is held by the FSF and working as part of an FSF-endorsed > project. > >> At the time, nobody explained that the SC concluded the EGCS >> experience was a failure and therefore the EGCS community >> should surrender and abandon the very reasons it emerged. > > No, indeed the opposite occured: it was concluded that the EGCS experience > was a SUCCESS and that the FSF should use that model for its future > development of GCC.
It appears we are currently not using that model. During EGCS lifetine, I do not remember we got to this situation where FSF had to disruptively interfere with development (whether on branch or not.) > >> It was my understanding that it was a compromise, but the >> EGCS community retains all rights to make technical >> decisions without disruptive interferences from FSF > > Your understanding is incorrect. Independence from the FSF was never an > issue. So, are you now suggesting that technical decisions where not the sole domain of GCC developers? That contradicts the conventional understanding we have taken on the issue in the past. -- Gaby
