> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
> To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen"
>
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> > I was under the (likely incorr
On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
without sharing proprietary code. Intel, IBM, nVi
> Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent
> treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to
> allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.=
“Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate lawsuits?
That’s some ver
I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
without sharing proprietary code. - NightStrike
You are correct. LLVM is under the Apache License
You have specified that the community does not require my approval or that
of Eric Raymond. That is true of course. But many have gone through so
much new age training that they ended up with a very sophisticated way
of bullshitting themselves.
Regards
Christopher
> I'll see my work in GCC11 th
This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists.
Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html).
I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the
GCC mailing list.
T
On 2021-04-17 12:08, Christopher Dimech wrote:
Thomas,
So we are decided? I am not pushing anybody down the cliff - rms, you
or anybody. I simply wish that after
a few world wars, people start seeing the light and things will be
somewhat blissed out working on free software.
In a lot of w
Snapshot gcc-10-20210417 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210417/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 11:25 AM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-04-17, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:42 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021-01-21, H.J. Lu via Gnu-gabi wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO.
On 2021-04-17 10:40, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Christopher Dimech
wrote:
I do not see people really intending to fork. It explains why
detractors
have gone berserk.
I appreciate your colorful exaggerations, but I should point out that
the libstdc++
ma
On 2021-04-17, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:42 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
On 2021-01-21, H.J. Lu via Gnu-gabi wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> 1. GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO..GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_HI
>>
>> #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO 0xb000
>
On 17/04/2021 13:56, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi Gerald,,
>
> On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>>> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American
>> companies
>>> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is represen
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:40 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Jason Merrill" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > I do not see people re
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> I do not see people really intending to fork. It explains why detractors
> have gone berserk.
I appreciate your colorful exaggerations, but I should point out that
the libstdc++
maintainer has stated his intention to fork, in unambigous t
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:07 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Jason Merrill"
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 19:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 19:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:49 AM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
> wrote:
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> > > From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> > > To: "Christopher Dimech"
> > > Cc: "GCC Development"
> > > Subject: Re: A suggestion
Fundamentally, "micro-aggressions" describe insults and dismissals.
Interpreting insults and dismissals as aggression leads only to
an atrophy of the skills needed to mediate one's own disputes with
others. I oppose the use of the term absolutely.
-
Christopher Dimech
General
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:41 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , "Andrew Pinski" ,
> "Andrew Pinski via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel ex
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Gerald Pfeifer" , "Frosku"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Hi Gerald,,
>
> On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > > In my view,
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:25 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Aaron Gyes" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:09 PM
> From: "Gerald Pfeifer"
> To: "Frosku"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> > succeed in disassociating GCC fr
> >> It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what the
> >> actual relations are,
> > Why? What would that gain? I go back to my analogy of the British Queen.
> > What would be gained by "clarifying" that if she actually intervenes
> > non-trivially in the government of any Commonwealt
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:42 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-21, H.J. Lu via Gnu-gabi wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO..GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_HI
> >>
> >> #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO 0xb000
> >> #define GNU_PROPE
在 17/04/2021 16.27, Aaron Gyes 写道:
As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America.
Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China.
It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread
when they encountered the arguments making a
Hi Gerald,,
On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American
> companies
> > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative
> > of the free software grassroots communi
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
>
> ...
>
> Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> problem in term of global and local d
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
>
> On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> > with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in th
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms.
>
> Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quit
Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
>
> I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in the free
> software world like Debian or the Apache foundation would go
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms. This is not normal. Just b
Le 16/04/2021 à 19:06, Richard Kenner a écrit :
>> The authority of the FSF, GNU and RMS over GCC is and has been a
>> fiction for decades,
> For the most part, I agree.
>
>> It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what the
>> actual relations are,
> Why? What would that gain? I go ba
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
> the free software grassroots community
I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies"
interesting - a
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> norms.
Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite some
time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them
Hi Andrew and GCC,
On April 17, 2021 5:04:55 AM UTC, Andrew Pinski via Gcc
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I refer to a 'California
On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> salaries to hack on free softwa
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 9:27 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> Give me a break Forsku.
>
> Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel
> disenfranchised by
> this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of
> conduct,
> or how would discouraging “micro-aggressi
> I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
> that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
> exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line
> of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e.
> LA and Seattle
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 7:21 AM BST, Chris Punches wrote:
> I've lived in most states in the US and can confirm exclusionary
> regional cultures not only exist but are more common than the absence
> of them.
>
> You might not see it in Sioux City, but you'll see it in LA, you'll see
> it in Dallas,
38 matches
Mail list logo
