Peter O'Gorman wrote: > Yuhong Bao wrote: >> and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it. >> Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see >> the link I mentioned. > > Apple does not use a GPLv3 version of GCC.
Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing to anything that falls under the GPLv3. It is indeed in-topic. There are four Darwin maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS: darwin port Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Eric Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] and three of them are not allowed to read the GCC patches mailing list. They might do something if CCed, but not necessarily so. Same for Objective-C/C++: objective-c/c++ Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] objective-c/c++ Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now I wonder: 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is known to be inactive? 2) who should then get maintainership of darwin? note that there are some patches for darwin like this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/172498 It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this. Paolo
