Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this
happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF,
contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it
will happen in the tim
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this
>> happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF,
>> contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it
>> will happen in the time that people h
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
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
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
The SC knows of the issue
Still, after six months it would be nice to have a clearer idea of
what
will happen with respect to Darwin/ObjC, especially since the
previous
statement (which I suppose was "as clear as" Mike could do) was
buried
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the
>> Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just
>> knowing that inde
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:33:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale
> > the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list?
>
> No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple.
>
> It must be said also that
Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the
> Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just
> knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before
> Christmas (ie in 2008) and t
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
> > 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
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
> Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale
> the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list?
No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple.
It must be said also that Mike Stump accepted to review/discuss
Darwin/ObjC patches that he was CCed
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:47:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > App
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 O
13 matches
Mail list logo
