>
> > Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I
> > know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the
> > initial part of the decade. In recent years I don't think I encountered
> > any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 4:58 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" , "GCC Development"
> , "Ville Voutilainen"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from th
On 2021-04-18 00:38, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to
command
the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red
Hat.
This was communicated to
On 2021-04-17 20:10, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
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 them
Some had contacted me about it. Could have sent response off the list.
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going
with
hindsight...
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Richard Kenner"
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC Development"
> , siddh...@gotplt.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the
> It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that
> people choose.
I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default"
in any sense. What's being given here are reasons why some people
prefer LLVM over GCC.
> In those places, they don't trust Microsoft o
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 10:49 PM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> > Depends on the use ca
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner wrote:
>
> > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not
> > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but
> > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
> > washi
> Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not
> at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but
> I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
> washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology.
> You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software,
> because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it.
This is not correct and I suspect is a misunderstanding of what
"government data rights" means.
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen"
> , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/F
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:06 PM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> To: "Aaron Gyes"
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, 10:01 Christopher Dimech vi
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, 10:01 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
> You don't have to believe me of course. Go ask any lawyer worth her
> salt and she'll tell you the same thing!
>
And if they don't tell you the same thing, they're obviously not a true
Scotsman.
You don't have to believe me of course. Go ask any lawyer worth her
salt and she'll tell you the same thing!
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Aaron Gyes"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: A suggest
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen"
> , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/F
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:46 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
> To: "Gabriel Ravier" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward fro
On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for
some of those uses (e.g. I know some w
ng ownership claims. Also Red Hat,
> but I consider it minimal. Apple has a very long history of aggressive
> legal actions.
>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM
>> From: "Aaron Gyes"
>> To: "Christopher Dimech"
>> Subject: Re: A su
> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and
> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions.
> Originally, the LLVM License
> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the
> 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to
On 4/18/21 1:15 PM, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete
bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously
do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy
that mandates at least 20 percent
On 4/18/21 8:44 AM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
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
ent: 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, NightStr
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
quot;
> > > Cc: "GCC Development"
> > > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > > > > The "small minority of developers" you s
> >> 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
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 Apr 16, 2021, at 2:41 PM, 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 p
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:23 AM Ville Voutilainen via Gcc
wrote:
> On the first part, other people have touched on it already,
> but the fear of a dreaded non-free software vendor co-opting
> GCC as a library to a non-free project has resulted in GCC
> being unsuitable to be used as a library in f
On 4/16/2021 9:57 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
Hello world,
realising that my e-mails may have done more harm than good,
I will now unsubscribe from the gcc mailing list, so please
don't expect a reply unless you copy me in.
I don't think your emails have done any harm. I find them quit
> 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 back to my analogy of the British Queen.
What would be ga
From reading most of this thread, it is clear to me that
- The authority of the FSF, GNU and RMS over GCC is and has been a
fiction for decades,
- This fiction has been erased from the official web page of the
project,
- It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what th
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 for
Hello world,
realising that my e-mails may have done more harm than good,
I will now unsubscribe from the gcc mailing list, so please
don't expect a reply unless you copy me in.
Best regards
Thomas
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dim
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 16:22, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> Many do not contribute because they do not have time, resources or support.
Yes? And? Even if GCC detaches itself from FSF, those who can contribute will
continue to contribute. And those who talk about contributing but
don't contribute
wi
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dim
> Due to their being paid for the work. Have no doubt that if others
> were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
> contributors. Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.
This is a non-sequitur.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> > seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> > considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.
>
> Due to their being paid for the work. Have no dou
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 10:16 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen via Gcc"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Subject: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> Huge apologies for mis-sending this to gcc-patches,
> my email client makes sugg
Huge apologies for mis-sending this to gcc-patches,
my email client makes suggestions when I attempt
to send to a gcc list. :D
The actual suggestion is at the end; skip straight to it if you wish.
>Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you express
exactly what a lot of pe
50 matches
Mail list logo
