> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Richard Biener via Gcc"
> To: "Jason Merrill"
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig" , "gcc mailing list"
>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On April 15, 2021 6:02:50 PM GMT+02
On April 15, 2021 6:02:50 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:08 AM Richard Biener via Gcc
> wrote:
>> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> wrote:
>> >N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
>> >On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:08 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> wrote:
> >N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
> >On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
> >wrote:
> >> - All gfortran developers move to
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:42 AM
> From: "Jeff Law"
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Toon Moene"
> Cc: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas
> Koenig"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc"
> To: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas
> Koenig"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
>
On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
From: "Toon Moene"
To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig"
Subject: Re: GCC as
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> From: "Toon Moene"
> To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener"
> , "Jonathan Wakely" ,
> "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig"
>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with th
On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
- All
On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
- All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
>
>On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
>wrote:
>> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not
>>happen, I can guarantee you that.
>
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not
>happen, I can guarantee you that.
This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
from there be
On 14.04.21 09:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
mailing list do not follow gcc. I know of at least two contributors
(myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contri
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
> mailing list do not follow gcc. I know of at least two contributors
> (myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
> in that case.
Do you mind if I
On 14.04.21 01:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on
what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with
EGCS. But that's precisely wh
On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on
what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with
EGCS. But that's precisely why I want folks to chime in,
partic
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on what
I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with EGCS. But
that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, particularly those doing
the day-to-date development work --
On 4/13/2021 10:52 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite
possibility here
Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM
On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite
possibility here
Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM, thus rendering
GCC irrelevant and ruining an
is is resolved.
Maybe - but it is very apparent that the current "discussion" will lead nowhere.
I would disagree with that Richi. While there are elements in this
discussion that are unhelpful, the overall question about GCC
association with the FSF and GNU is a good one to be
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:24 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> >
> > Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
> > release of GCC 11 out of the door.
>
> Then it is important this is resolved.
Maybe - but it is very appar
"but muh freedum license re"
"haha quality compiler suite go brrr"
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 8:25 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> That will never make it appropriate.
>
> I would encourage you to reflect more carefully on the meaning of the
> words you are reading and using.
>
> These argumen
That will never make it appropriate.
I would encourage you to reflect more carefully on the meaning of the
words you are reading and using.
These arguments are paper thin, and full of lofty rhetoric; none of
them will expand the expectation of anyone here to include integrating
their poltical bel
On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.
Then it is important this is resolved.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/11/21 9:34 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
the very projects they are sponsoring.
Good jo
On 12/04/2021 14:52, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
>> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
>> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;
>
> Easy to say for someon
On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;
Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's
just that i
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:13, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one
> ever re
> For developers, I think the GPL matters very much. It introduces
> fairness in the contribution process - companies and individuals
> can contribute code knowing that it can't be taken away and locked
> up, to be modified, sold and distributed as binary packages
> (eg. Nvidia).
Note that this di
David Brown writes:
> > So why /do/ people use it? I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> > "it's the only compiler that will do the job". For a lot of important
> > software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing. Another big
> > reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 11:24, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:12, Chris Punches via Gcc
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
>> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
>> you would prob
On 12.04.21 11:32, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.
Amen.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:12, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one
> ever re
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 7:22 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 16:56 David Brown, wrote:
>
> >
> > The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
> > accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name. If the
> > FSF keep their own "gcc
On 4/12/21 12:55 PM, John Darrington wrote:
In GNU, there are no "senior" (or junior) developers/maintainers. Maintainers
have some specific responsibilities, with which developers are not emcumbered.
In almost all projects, the maintainers are also developers, but this need not
be the case. Bu
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
41;344;0cOn Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 07:30:13PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella via Gcc
wrote:
And there was no hate (at least not from my side) only *disappointment*
that you used your status to do it even though most of senior developers and
maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it.
I
David Brown writes:
> So why /do/ people use it? I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> "it's the only compiler that will do the job". For a lot of important
> software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing. Another big
> reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is common
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:43 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that,
> > but you
> > ignored it anyway.
>
> How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
>
> >
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html
Thanks
> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)
Fair eno
On 4/12/21 7:13 AM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
ignored it anyway.
How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
There are irreconcilable d
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but
> you
> ignored it anyway.
How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
> *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided
>
Hello,
I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one
ever really knows.
I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because,
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >
> > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > does.
>
> I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
>
> The main job of the GC
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:04 AM David Brown wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> >> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> >> always the direction in which it *should* go.
> >
> > I agree. And depending on people's "political" views
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>
> I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> does.
I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
maintainers: the people who have the right
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva"
> Cc: "David Malcolm via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >
On Apr 11, 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?
> I gave them in my initial email. You can go find them in the archive.
Err, I've been repeatedly told (not by you) that that was a separate
discussion.
The reasons you pointed o
On 2021-04-11 16:29, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
sold your services assigns *their* copyrights
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:06 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> > bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
>
> I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert th
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons. What I
> don't recall seeing is the actual issue. Pardon me if I missed it; I
> gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
> sidestepped it, which tells
On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
That statement is certainly not true
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:04 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva"
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, wrote:
>
> > Jonathan,
>
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that
the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been ma
On 4/11/21 5:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 8, 2021, David Brown wrote:
I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
pleas
On 4/11/21 2:51 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project.
RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
RMS is also founder of the FSF.
The FSF was
> Il giorno 11 apr 2021, alle ore 17:45, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc
> ha scritto:
>
> Remember how much hate RMS got in glibc land for something I did? I
> said I did it out of my own volition, I explained my why I did it, but
> people wouldn't believe he had nothing to do with it!
It was cle
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
>> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
>> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is
> very m
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's pretty confusing to outsiders.
It is indeed. Up to 2004 or so, I'm told, the FSF didn't even have its
own separate web site. Before 2019, it never seemed terribly important
to clear that up, but the confusion of concerns has always bugged me.
> T
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
On Apr 8, 2021, David Brown wrote:
> I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
> actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> There have been many posts over the past two weeks [...] based on
> little but veneration.
> Your own emails are always carefully considered
Thanks for confirming it.
Now, you were responding to me, not to the other posters.
As usual among RMS critic
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
> veneration.
>
There have been many posts over the past two weeks suggesting that without
RMS to guide us, GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that nobody h
>However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project. That appears
to be a very common misperception.
>The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
independent (unincorporated) organization, w
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 20:19 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
>
> However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project. That appears
> to be a very common misperception.
>
> The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
> guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project,
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader
of
the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my
On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of
> the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
> my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
> 20 years, has to be patiently c
There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project.
RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
RMS is also founder of the FSF.
The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project.
The FS
Jonathan,
It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
veneration.
I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
movement.
If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 16:56 David Brown, wrote:
>
> The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
> accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name. If the
> FSF keep their own "gcc" project, then calling the new fork "gcc" as
> well would cause confusion.
On 11/04/2021 17:06, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc,
>>
>> FWIW, again speaking personally, I would be in favour of joining a fork.[*]
>>
>
> Glad to hear it :-)
>
> I will be forking, alone if necessary, but I've already been told by a few
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc,
wrote:
>
>
> I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassociating
> itself” from the FSF or from the GNU project. No-one can force the FSF or
> the GNU project to drop GCC (and I don't think anyone's trying to make it
> do t
On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
>> always the direction in which it *should* go.
>
> I agree. And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
> an advantage or disadvantage of the fr
On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 14:07 +0100, Frosku wrote:
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters
> > > of the
> > >
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "David Brown"
> To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >It should remain an acronym, but it should n
> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> always the direction in which it *should* go.
I agree. And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.
> To give just one small pr
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:30:48AM -0400, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC -
technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually
involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the
> Then it would not longer be GCC. It would be something different.
> The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> cost of software freedom.
Certainly that was its initial intent, but I'd argue that a
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:15 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
>
> The free software community is much similar to India. A conscious chaos
> where you can't teach discipline. People will feel home sick if there is
> too much order.
>
> People are trying to put a western template, but the first f
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 14:59 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC -
> technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually
> involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU foll
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, g...@gnu.org, rodg...@appliantology.com
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on
On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
>Collection". That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
>name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>
> Then it would not longer be GCC. It
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 13:31 John Darrington wrote:
>
> For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly
> in
> a major role. I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few
> days
> ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.
> So
> ei
[ Like many others who have posted to this thread, I've contributed
to GCC at various times as a hobby and at other times as a paid
employee. Here I'm speaking as a personal contributor, not on
behalf of my current employer. ]
I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassoc
It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection". That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
Then it would not longer be GCC. It would be something different.
The whole point of GCC is to
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:07 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Didier Kryn" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit
> I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with
> something like a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be
> another free software project's contributor (as is my case).
I suspect that's not true. It certainly wasn't true when more major
large companies used GCC to compile
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority. Assi
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 2:23 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU
> The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects have
> always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
> Contributors are exactly that. They offer *contributions* - the
> very meaning of the word implies there is no expectation of anything
> in return. Obviously
On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> and contributing.
GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
freedom for *
> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> and contributing.
I agree, but I'm not clear if you're claiming that that is or is not
currently the case. I believe it is.
> > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> >
> > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
>
> If the c
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:05 AM
> From: "John Darrington"
> To: "Gerald Pfeifer"
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> There are a num
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike
David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.
For myself, I hav
Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child cons
Please move these off-topic discussions somewhere else, people are
already annoyed and angry as it is -- on both sides!
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are
> stored on their corporate servers.
You keep making statements which are simply wrong.
None of my GCC-related e-mails touch the servers of my employer,
nor servers under the control of my
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> GCC is clearly an US-only project.
This is simply incorrect.
> A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
As is this.
> This is not intended as an insult.
> It's just a fact.
Ex falso quodlibet.
Gerald
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
to nothing to GCC, whose names e
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
