On March 31, 2021 5:23:09 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> >wrote: >> >> * David Edelsohn via Gcc: >> >> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm >aware of. >> >> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would >> not have happened naturally. Someone had to step in and delay the >> plugin framework feature until the licensing changes were in place. > >I wrote blocked, not delayed. In order to continue the alignment of >GCC with the FSF, the GCC SC agreed to delay deployment of LTO and >Plugins until a license to allow such features could be implemented. >We didn't feel that a rupture with the FSF would be beneficial. > >Because I foresaw the need for such features and the need for the >license to accommodate it, I had been designing and negotiating with >the FSF for an appropriate license exception for years before LTO and >Plugins were proposed. Richard Stallman, Richard Fontana, Brad Kuhn >and I all worked to resolve the issue. > >I and other members of the GCC SC have worked diligently behind the >scenes to ensure that GCC and GNU Toolchain development can proceed as >smoothly and unhindered as possible. We have prevented or resolved >many conflicts and issues without disturbing the broader community and >allow the community to focus on its important tasks and great progress >for the toolchain itself. I, at least, view that as my role as a >member of the GCC SC. It's like a good manager: regardless of the >openness, hopefully the GCC community feels that the GCC SC "has their >back", manages the politics, and removes real or potential roadblocks >so that the software engineer can focus on being productive.
Indeed. I believe without the SC doing this GCC would either have disassociated itself from GNU (again) or be of marginal importance today (without those features). Richard. > >Thanks, David
