On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote: > > 2) Last year, I asked for libcody to be added as a subcomponent, with > > its Apachev2 license intact. AFAICT RMS was involved in that licensing > > discussion, /for which I never received a response/. He was not at the > > FSF then, so he could not render any FSF licensing opinion. Why was he > > involved? If he was not involved, how did he learn of it in order to > > ask me questions about C++ modules? I only emailed the SC and the > > timing is too coincidental to draw a different conclusion. > > Yes, we definitely dropped the ball on that. Sorry. If that ever > happens again I would encourage you to ping. > > I checked the mailing list archives. Jeff and I expressed support for > using libcody. Nobody else said anything. Certainly RMS didn't say > anything, and it would have been astonishing if he had. But, yes, he > was CC'ed.
And while in that case RMS probably learned of modules and libcody through the SC mailing list, in general he has this habit of asking GNU package developers random questions related to their packages. RMS once asked me about the status of fused multiply-add support in glibc. I don't know why. He wasn't asking for any changes or objecting to anything the glibc maintainers had done. I'd hope that future Chief GNUisances won't try to get involved in details like that as part of their role as Chief GNUisance, because it's clearly outside the scope of such a role, and that if interested in such details as an individual free software developer (but not directly involved in development of the package in question) they will do more research of their own first and then approach the usual public mailing lists or other public discussion areas rather than individual developers. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
