-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunda
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
On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc
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
> 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
If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t occurred
after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are wrong about
the intent?
Aaron
> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
>
> I know that Apple can make some strong ownership cla
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
Please refer to the *Exemptions* section listed in the link below
https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code
-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disast
> 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/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> The ca
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 suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
>
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.
> 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 via Gcc,
> wrote:
>
> > You don't have to believe me o
> 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/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> The caus
> 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.
> 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.
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
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
> 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 SC's
secret exchanges"?
> 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 cases. Not in military surveillance. And
> 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
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc :
> 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 thre
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
But that was around 2017. Perhaps people want to cut costs again - that's
not a new thing. After all, they changed their mind in 2011 only because
they got in excess of 5000 attacks that year. At any time in the past, I
would have decided that science was good for the Sapiens. But now, with
hin
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 forward from the RMS/FSF d
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric
because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to
his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women
but didn't send it in the ho
-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Monda
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
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
> 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 the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 2021-04-18 00:38, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote
David,
On Apr 18, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with
> arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the
> simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation.
All sides in this multi-threade
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 16:32, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they
> start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander
> to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like
> this one alive.
>
> I reject t
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 19:54, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because
> they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are
> not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not
> disqualify those who
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated,
Shall we ask him to confirm what I read between the lines?
Shall we ask Nathan?
Shall we ask you?
> it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post
> here, given your
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion
*nod*
That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
driven dissenters into silence.
V
Snapshot gcc-11-20210418 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210418/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 8:13 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of
> your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to
> suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track
> record. Dave didn'
>
> > 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
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> driven dissenters into silence.
The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:10 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly concl
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
>
>
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > > their opinions are consensual, or majo
40 matches
Mail list logo
