On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 14:22 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > I (Basile) very probably misunderstood what Joseph Myers or Richard > Guenther meant. What I might have [mis]understood scares me. This is a > request for clarification.
> Did I understood that in your view no branch hosted on GCC SubVersion > should provide plugins? Why? Is it only your view, or some decision by > some powerful guys (e.g. the Steering Committee)? Did the MELT branch > [*] suddenly become illegal without me knowing about that? That would be > ironical for a branch which happened -with other branches & people- to > have pushed the idea of plugins! > > Is there some [political?] impossibility for FSF copyrighted GPLv3 code > (like those sitting in branches, e.g. the MELT one) to become plugins? I > thought that becoming GPLv3/FSF plugins is an additional natural path > for code sitting in branched to become accepted in the trunk! I don't think that the responses have answered Basile's concerns. Basile, people are saying that MELT no longer belongs in a branch of the GCC repository because now that plug-ins are supported, MELT no longer needs to modify GCC itself and can be maintained independently. That does not mean that MELT cannot be assignd to the FSF (you should probably talk to the FSF about that) and certainly doesn't mean that it can't use GPLv3. It also doesn't mean that you should stop being part of the GCC community. All it means is that the MELT sources should now be hosted elsewhere as a separate project. Richi and Joseph, do you agree with that? Janis
