On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 07:48:50PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abeb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies, abusers > > and even IT-fascists can thrive". > > > > It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering committee > > and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries. > > The GCC project maintainers and the steering committee are definitely > not crossing ethical or legal boundaries here. > > I don't know anything about Bountysource. Bountysource is completely > separate from GCC. It appears from your link that John Paul Adrian > Glaubitz posted a bounty for some GCC work. A number of people and > organizations supported the bounty, but the GCC project itself did > not. Although the work is for GCC, the GCC project has nothing to do > with that bounty. That is handled entirely by Bountysource.
Yeah, all that happened on the GCC project side is the agreement to deprecate and eventually remove ports that still rely on internal details that were obsolete 20 years ago, see https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01256.html and then patch review of changes that were posted to gcc-patches. The GCC reviewers review posted patches based on the technical merits and whether copyright assignment for parts that require copyright assignment is available, regardless of whether the people who submit their work did the work in their spare time without being compensated for it, whether their employers compensated them for it, whether they got contracted by some company for that work or other means (e.g. bountysource). All that is outside of the scope of the GCC project. Bountysource AFAIK has its own terms and rules and I believe ultimately it is the people who donated money for it that vote about that. Jakub
