On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck <joe.b...@synopsys.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple >> > currently is >> > charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue. >> >> Apple does not have an internal process to assign code to the FSF anymore. >> I would focus on the code that is already assigned to the FSF. > > To clarify, anything not checked in on gcc.gnu.org somewhere must be > assumed to be copyright Apple, not copyright FSF, and has not been > contributed, and Apple has no plans to contribute more code. However, > anything on gcc.gnu.org has been contributed. > > I understand that the main issue is that Apple objects to GPLv3, but > the exact reason doesn't necessarily matter that much.
Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF. For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat. For GCC as a project it should matter that the code is distributable under GPLv3 which I think Apples changes are. Copyright assignment to the FSF might be convenient, but isn't legally necessary (only necessary by policy and even that seems to have existing exceptions). Thus, if getting the copyright assigned to the FSF for the ObjC changes proves to be impossible I'd suggest to ask the SC for a policy exception. Richard.
