Sure Richard, I know.
On June 9, 2021 2:32:22 PM UTC, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> You are free to create "DCO-free" branches for the GCC 11 series
> (and older), reverting any DCO "incumbered" backports that reach
> the official GCC branches for those series.
I could.
Like all other people aff
Hi Gabriel,
On June 9, 2021 12:41:09 PM UTC, Gabriel Ravier
wrote:
>
> I do consider that a lack of transparency is pretty bad, and that
> discussions on subjects like this should be done in public, but I
> wouldn't say it's just as bad as the potential risk that a fork would
> incur.
I reall
Hi Gabriel,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:44:10 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say
> that SC has indeed arguably done this [...]
> some people threatened to pull away from GCC entirely if it remained
> tied to the FSF. I personally h
Hi Jason,
On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> URL"?
Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
> What return on their time can they r
Hi NightStrike,
On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> >
>
> Likely because the primary
On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
>
> > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > to FSF will not really change anything significant.
> >
> > I&
Hi Jakub,
On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for
> decades, just look at the source.
>
> libffi has various copyright holders
> include/hsa* has AMD as copyright holder
> gcc/go/gofrontend and libgo has The Go A
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:48:06 +0200 Richard Biener wrote:
> > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the
> > development branch already?
>
> I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
A very good news!
(but should be confirmed by the Steering Committee)
This means that this issue is stil
Hi David,
On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > It's a breaking change, after all.
>
> It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3). It's not
> reverting the existing copyrights and assignments.
For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway.
Before
Hi Richard,
On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would have really appreciated if the
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:50:44 -0400 Daniel Pono Takamori wrote:
> We definitely don't want to see the GCC mailing list derailed into
> discussing this possibly off-topic issue.
To be fair, THIS is the correct mailing list to discuss these
topics, so much that such major policy change sh
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:14:15 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Because it makes no sense
A change in the copyright policies and ownership of a project is usually
seen as a very big change, so much that usually the project change its
whole name, not just its major version.
> doing a GCC release is lots
Hi Jakub,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:02:16 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Is it possible to release a new version for the last commit that
> > only includes changes under FSF copyright, possibly deferring the
> > in
Hello GCC developers,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:00:06 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the
er they live.
Feel free to believe what makes you feel better.
Giacomo
On April 20, 2021 9:42:55 AM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee
> is
Hi GCC developers,
just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
problematic,
I'd like you to give a look at this commit
message over Linux MAINTAINERS
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=4acd47644ef1e1c8f8f5bc40b7cf1c5b9bcbbc4
Hi Kenner
On April 18, 2021 12:42:25 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
> > So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers
> could
> > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them).
>
> I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the
Hi David, Ian, Nathan and GCC all.
Let's start from what we agree upon:
On April 17, 2021 6:11:57 PM UTC, David Brown
wrote:
> The way you go on about "controversial American companies" and "undue
> influence" suggests you think these companies are forcing their
> employees on the gcc steering
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
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
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
Hi Alexandre and Jonathan,
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:49:54 -0300 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be
> > trusted or don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true
> > and don't see this as an advantage)
>
> Trust is not rati
Hi Ville,
On April 11, 2021 8:04:07 PM UTC, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc
wrote:
> I don't love Jonathan Wakely's idea of forking libstdc++. I would much
> rather not have that fork happen. But I will follow that fork. I know
> him well enough that trying to talk him out of doing the fork is
> unlik
It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D
Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan.
Just not to everybody else.
But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share
://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg
The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-)
Giacomo
On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
>
Hi John,
On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
> Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine. T
No, David,
On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
> (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.
FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.
> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
Thanks Kenner...
On April 4, 2021 1:49:57 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
> > I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations
> > and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights
> > violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoi
Ian,
with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and
choices, I think you are still missing the point.
On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor
wrote:
> But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never
> really a member of the committee anyhow)
Hi Ian, Gerald and GCC all
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:25:34 -0700 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 3:06 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry for this long mail that rivals with the original Nathan's
> > request, but I wanted to back my reques
Dear Jonathan,
everybody can see it...
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:05:10 +0100 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 11:06, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > But from outside your "cultural bubble", we all see that a bunch of
> > highly controversial [3][4] US corporat
Hello Thomas, Jonathan, David, Nathan Jean and... everybody. :-)
I'm sorry for this long mail that rivals with the original Nathan's
request, but I wanted to back my request properly.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:25:23 -0700 Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> Not to argue counter to the observation that there
Hi Jeff,
thanks for fixing your affiliation, but let me note that it doesn't
change a dime for the geopolitical-diversity issue that affects GCC
since before RMS joined the Steering Committee.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:35:36 -0600 Jeff Law wrote:
> > To me, and to billions of people, this shows a
Hi David, thanks for sharing!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:27:29 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
> based on his role in the GNU Project [...]
> we are removing him from the page.
I have to admit that I had never carefully observed the
Hi Mark,
I'm a bit in a hurry and do not really want to focus on what happened
in Harvey: to my eyes that story just show you cannot trust people just
because they are nice and well known "open source" contributors, or
because they work for big multinational that "do no evil" or even
join the Good
Hi Martin,
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:53:20 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their
Hi everybody, thanks for your feedbacks.
I've to say I'm a bit confused, but maybe we have different sources and
experience so we have different perspective on the matter.
Let's start with something I want to clarify:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:07:07 -0400 JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> You state it he
Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:02:30 -0400 Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> The USA is not the world and the SC is not the US government. For
> those in the USA, the (inapplicable) first amendment provides 5
> rights, including showing an unwelcome guest the door. [...]
>
> If we f
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:04:13 -0700
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 4:34 PM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
> > So I defined in the gcc/config/jehanne.h (see attachment) the macros
> > LINK_SPEC, LIB_SPEC and CPP_SPEC that substitute such command line
> > options
of Jehanne.
*
* Copyright (C) 2016-2020 Giacomo Tesio
*
* Jehanne is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation, version 2 of the License.
*
* Jehanne is distributed in the hope
40 matches
Mail list logo
