Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
... > 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. I personally don't think there is any need to remove them as maintainers until the FSF finally produces the GPLv3 version of the runtime library license. At that point Apple will be out of excuses, and will have to finally decide in or out on future gcc developmnt. It's worth noting that in a larger sense, Apple is simply not interested in contributing to gcc. If they were interested, they would contribute. They (for some version of "they") are using GPLv3 as a tactic to get out of the gcc game while blaming it on us. They have not raised any actual substantial issue with the GPLv3, which is not surprising, since the GPLv3 does not impose any additional requirements on them beyond GPLv2. However, the gcc community can't call them on that until the runtime library license is complete, as its absence is indeed a valid objection. Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue > at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer > than the current 4.2 one. The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they presumably plan to stop using the gcc frontend. gcc's code is so tangled anyhow, it's not like using the gcc frontend somehow makes LLVM compile code the same way gcc does. Ian
