Mission Statement

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 9:07 AM
> From: "Aaron Gyes via Gcc" 
> To: "GCC Administrator via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: Mission Statement
>
> > In this state of making something right, and making
> > something wrong, there is no way for inclusiveness.
>
> Are you familiar with the tolerance paradox?
>
> Aaron

Yes, but I don't actually see how anybody in the hacker culture
has ever done that.  Do you?

Licensing Complications

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

A thing to seriously tackle is how the Gnu GPL permits making a
modified version and letting the public access it on a server
without ever releasing its source code.  The focus must really be
on ending any ownership on software.

This problem necessitates the production of additional
legal instruments that would allow the amalgamation of source
code from certain free licenses that could well be incompatible
but still fall within the free software definition.

Additionally, there exists the real possibility that source code
amalgamation could be allowed in one direction, but not the other.
I have experienced the problem regarding the impossibility of reaching,
locating or engaging the copyright holder.

Orphan works are a frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of
gridlock in the market-place.

Please refer to

https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf


- Christopher Dimech
Administrator General - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Mission Statement

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 3:49 AM
> From: "Aaron Gyes via Gcc" 
> To: "GCC Administrator via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: Mission Statement
>
> On Jun 9, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > 
> > Besides inspiring a sceptic attitude, Cicero made the language of
> > the civilized world.
> 
> Yes
> 
> > This has nothing to do with any complaints
> > of mistreatment, but mostly about belief systems that have taken
> > over many people's lives.  That's what is most embarrassing.
> 
> Huh

> > After all, it was yourself who criticised my attitude towards Liu
> > Hao, who had stated on 4/10/2021 the greatness of chairman mao
> > and how he eradicated discrimination from chinese society.  Once
> > you take on such zeal, you will get so badly identified with it,
> > that you yourself will became a social problem.
> > 
> > The chinese communist party killed thousands of people every year
> > by firing squads, lethal injection and mobile death vans.  Not to
> > mention the horrifying child-killing policy during china's
> > draconian one-child system.  It has recently also became infamous
> > for forced uighur sterilisation.  How can I ever agree with
> > someone who thinks the suppression of others is good!
> 
> Are you asserting I was wrong in my observations that day? Do you
> think I disagree with anything in the second quoted paragraph?
> Would it matter? Oh, why do I let myself get sucked in?

Absolutely.  You were wrong that day in attributing my comments
as personal criticisms based on country of origin.  Rather, it
was Liu Hao who started with group-based rhetoric that is the
mainstream position of the Chinese Communist Party.  One would be 
a fool to disagree with the second paragraph.  It was an argument
of how Liu Hao was wrong.
 
> What even is that kind of argument occurring post “After all,”?

It was a rejection of how things could be categorised as awkward. 
And an opportunity to set things right after the great controversies
we got embroiled into then. 
 
> I can’t figure out if this is just a non-sequitur, and/or a straw
> man, or part of a gish gallop? Something just pathological?
> Perhaps I should go get checked and make sure I didn’t have a stroke
> since it seems like I must be having trouble processing my
> environment: it seems like you’ve been behaving this way on the
> mailing list for months and apparently nobody in charge has asked
> you to do better or stop and everyone here is pretty smart and
> professional.

On the contrary, I have received a number of personal
correspondence questioning why I continue expressing my point of
view, or support people such as Richard Stallman and
others (within the Free Software Foundation; and among the open
source chiefs), from other prominent individuals leading software
projects around the world.

> Aaron

Such discussions have only come from cultures which are steeped
in morality.  As to something has to be good, and something has to
be bad.  In this state of making something right, and making
something wrong, there is no way for inclusiveness.

Every master has his own way.  You don't like my way as has been
evident by your implications that I am somehow diseased.  There
are whole academic dissertations on this inappropriate,
segregation-minded black-white dualism.  Such deliberate
segregation is something that has to be tackled.

I am very clear on what I am doing.  What somebody says, good or
bad things, it does not matter.  The best things that have ever
been done on this planet have always had bad press.  Today the
cycle has changed, but it will come back.  Soon the appreciation
will come.  Although my involvement is not about appreciation or
fear of criticism, I will not fall short of myself.  What I can
do must happen.

GCC Mission Statement

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 3:26 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Richard Biener" 
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "Valentino Giudice" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC Mission Statement
>
> Sure Richard, I know.
>
> On June 9, 2021 2:32:22 PM UTC, Richard Biener  wrote:
> >
> > You are free to create "DCO-free" branches for the GCC 11 series
> > (and older), reverting any DCO "incumbered" backports that reach
> > the official GCC branches for those series.
>
> I could.
>
> Like all other people affected by the change.
> If they know they should.
>
> But isn't this a responsibility inversion?
>
>
> I wonder: is this how you treat your users?
>
> "Go fuck yourself" but politely stated?
>
> To be honest, this comes to me as a great surprise.
>
>
> That's what one would expect by the random guy on github, not by employees
> of RedHat or Google serving as the Steering Committee of GCC.
>
>
> Giacomo

We could start all over again.  We have already done it once with just one man.
And he shocked the world!

Mission Statement

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

All this could became meaningless in ten years time because major
changes have resulted from division.  If we go on dividing the
world using a knife rather than stitching it together, everything
will be left in tatters.  The more effort taken in this direction,
the more destructive things will become.  Rather, we must touch
deeper dimensions of our intelligence which is naturally
unifying.

For the sake of study, we initially divided things.  With time we
start believing that's how things work.  But nature is such that
without inclusiveness, there is no possibility.  If people do not
understand what I am talking about, they only have to keep their
mouth shut and hold their nose, and became totally exclusive.
And in a few minutes they will be dead.

The question is whether we are conscious about what is happening
or not.  Otherwise, inclusiveness will only be for survival
purposes.  The recent changes in the control of Gcc have all been
about survival.  Although, the change in copyright assignment can
prove beneficial to everybody, this assumes that the people in
the Gcc Steering Committee are actually capable of formally
understanding and operating the appropriate legal instruments (or
getting people who do the capability) to move the world closer to
a freedom respecting technological culture.

It is undeniable that the driving force behind the change was not
communal at all.  The aim was to loosen the bonds between the GCC
Projects and the FSF, pushed by the drive to impose the most
extreme form of censure to an individual and declare him "Persona
Non-Grata".

As for the way forward in the next ten years, software must
became much leaner and effective because of technological
capabilities.  There is no other way.  Software has not moved
fast as it should be for users.  The trend in the world in the
area of technology is that most things are becoming very lean and
mean.  One of the greatest injustices I see is that many things
are made in a hurry.

> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2021 at 4:56 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "Valentino Giudice" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC Mission Statement
>
> On 6/9/21 10:13 AM, Valentino Giudice via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > The Mission Statement of the GCC project recently changed without any
> > announcement.
>
> Well there was an announcement; the changes in the mission statement
> reflect the new reality introduced by that announcement:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
>
> Siddhesh
>



- Christopher Dimech
Administrator General - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 2:17 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "David Edelsohn" 
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "gcc Mailing List" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi David,
>
> On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > > It's a breaking change, after all.
> >
> > It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3).  It's not
> > reverting the existing copyrights and assignments.
>
> For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway.
>
> Before there was only one, well known no-profit copyright holder.
>
> After, there will be MANY copyright holders, just like in Linux.

What we wish is that there will be no copyright holders at all.

> And as you might know, many corporate Linux adopter have been sued
> for copyright violation by individual copyright holders (often referred as
> "copyright trolls") and settled the cases out of court for money.
>
>
> > As Eben Moglen
> > stated in the ZDNet article: "the FSF will long remain the
> > preponderant copyright holder in GCC and related projects... No
> > downstream user, modifier or redistributor of GCC is facing any
> > changes whatsoever."



> For now and for most of downstream users, Moglen is right.
>
> But in the long term, what happens in Linux is likely to happen in GCC too.
>
> Introducing such legal risk on users without writing anything in the Changelog
> an without proper notice has not been much respectful.
>
> GCC is one of core components of today's infrastructure.
>
> It's used all over the world and in many different way and legal envirnment.
>
>
> > The break mostly is psychological, not technical or legal.
>
> Do you mean such change was just introduced to address a psycological issue?
>
> I've never listen about such kind of therapy, but I know nothing about 
> psychology.
>
>
> Anyway, to most people it's just a matter of risk assesment.
>
> GCC will now come with a new legal risk that was absemt before, thus
> it should be handled properly, with a proper notice and incapaulated
> in a new major version.

The responsibility will now get transferred to the maintainers.  And we all 
know how
great most maintainers are with legal instruments.  I can then be entitled to 
insult
maintainers Ad Nausium about the licensing problems that occur, because I long 
got fed
up of maintainers thinking too highly of themselves, and and other contributors 
telling
me to shut up because I am not the major maintainer of Gcc.

> And tbh, it doesn't look such an unreasonable request, after all.
>
>
> Giacomo
>

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2021 at 6:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Jason Merrill" 
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "gcc Mailing List" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> > "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> > URL"?
>
> Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
>
> > What return on their time can they reasonably expect?
>
> Money.
>
> You are overly underestimating how long in takes to get a sentence over the 
> world.
> In Italy it could literally take a decade.
>
> Also there is ALWAYS uncertaintly when in comes to courts.

What me strive for is for the Gpl to became irrelevant.  Whan there are
no arguments against copyleft.

>
> That's why in most cases, these matters do not reach a sentence.
>
> For most corporations over the world it's way cheaper to pay the "troll",
> be him right or wrong.
>
>
> With the previous CA policy, this could not happen.
>
> That's why it should be managed like a major breaking change.
>
>
> > The Linux kernel community adopted the GPL3 curing process ("GPL
> > cooperation commitment") as a remedy for the troll problem.  Do you
> > think this was a pointless exercise?
>
> At best, it's more a form risk mitigation to the corporate needs of the first 
> world
> than a solution to the "copyright troll" problem.
>
> But the fact is that GCC was completely unaffected with the previous policy.
>
> And I'm not even arguing agaist the new one!
>
> I'm just asking to clearly mark with a new version its application.
>
> In a few years, as the existing versions will be deprecated, the new policy 
> will
> become the only one, but at least users will have had time to assess their
> business with GCC.
>
>
> > > And also because there are many fewer redistributors of GCC, and
> > they are
> > > in the business of distributing software.
> > >
> > > And why GCC redistribution should be discouraged?
> > >
> >
> > It shouldn't!  My point is that businesses redistributing GCC are such
> > that compliance with the GPL is natural for them, unlike, say,
> > manufacturers of smart toasters running Linux.
>
> Oh, I misunderstood what you meant, sorry.
>
> Well, maybe not a toaster, but imagine a cheap low-energy eink-based
> zen-mode writing/programming machine running gcc-emacs as sole program.
>
> Why such kind of gcc-distribution business should be discouraged by these 
> legal issues?
>
> Yes, it's an hypothetical example, but you know... Twitter is a business too:
> anything can happen, however unpredictable.
>
> That's why I think the Steering Committee should be very careful while
> changing the legal framework of GCC.
>
>
> Giacomo
>

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Daniel Pono Takamori" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> I'm joining this list just briefly to give some feedback and input on this
> thread on behalf of Software Freedom Conservancy, since we were mentioned
> multiple times in this thread.  I suspect any conversation about how
> Conservancy and GCC might work together should be off-list or another list,
> and I have suggestions on that below.

Software Freedom Conservancy cannot dictate what gets discussed here.  Naturally
people, including the GCC Steering Committee could discuss with the Software 
Freedom
Conservancy Group on matters they wish to discuss.  But, as you could have 
deduced,
we allow comments ourselves on any aspects, and have allowed absolute freedom of
speech that could well have harmed people's sentiments and emotions very easily.

The law protects a broad variety of honest assessments and discussions.

> > > On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > > > holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> > > > that role and helps us as a project with copyleft compliance?
>
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > > Personally, this would have been my preference.
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:18 AM Mark Wielaard  wrote:
> > the Conservancy is happy to share their knowledge and discuss policy issues
> > with the GCC community if we decide we want their input.
>
> Jason Merrill replied:
> >> This seems to me a complement rather than an alternative; some Linux
> >> developers use the Conservancy copyleft services while contributing under
> >> the DCO, and some GCC developers could do the same.
>
> Jason, we agree completely that anything Conservancy might offer is a
> complement rather than a replacement for any structure that the GCC community
> already has or might want to build.  For example, the Copyleft Compliance
> project that Mark mentioned 
> is primarily designed for projects (e.g., BusyBox, Debian, Linux, Samba) that
> have diversely-held copyright.  We provide logistical and coordination
> support for individuals who hold copyright (and help them figure out how to
> keep their own copyrights) and we also accept copyright assignment from those
> who prefer assignment.  (As a reminder, Conservancy is not a law firm and we
> do not provide legal services and advice.)

It is important that people understand this - Software Freedom Conservancy does 
not
provide any legal advice.  The FSF, on the other hand, has a robust Copyright 
and
Compliance framework where one can report violations.

Furthermore, thue FSF can still help bring about compliance even when the 
copyright
lies elsewhere.

> Also, note that both these models of copyright (assigning to a single entity,
> or having diversly held copyright among both entities and individuals) are
> compatible with the DCO in our experience.  The DCO is an assent mechanism
> for licensing, and is orthogonal to the question of who holds the copyright.
>
> We would be glad to talk off-list with any GCC developers who have already
> decided to keep their own copyright about joining an enforcement coalition at
> Conservancy.
>
> The final note that Conservancy would like to share on-list is that through
> our ContractPatch initiative , we've been
> encouraging individuals to assure that their employment contract does permit
> them to keep their own copyrights.  There are many reasons and advantages
> for individuals rather than their employers to take control of copylefted
> copyrights.  We'd also be glad to discuss those policy benefits with anyone
> who is interested off-list.

The FSF has been at the forefront regarding the Disclaimer of Copyright aspect
from employers.  What we can say is that things will became much more difficult
to manage if things are related without a real understanding of the 
implications.

> If you'd like to discuss any of these topics further with Conservancy, may I
> suggest the Contract Patch mailing list at:
> 
> We definitely don't want to see the GCC mailing list derailed into
> discussing this possibly off-topic issue.
>
> -Pono from Software Freedom Conservancy

It is well known that the Software Freedom Law Center has always sought to 
resolve
licensing disputes amicably. On the other, the Software Freedom Conservancy 
takes
much harder line against the noncompliance of licensing terms.

On August 26, 2016, Linus Torvalds stated that he found such type of lawyering
a nasty festering disease, and the SFC is spreading that disease.

I agree with Torvalds following your arguing on what is discussed here.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html

---

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 at 2:45 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Jakub Jelinek" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:14:15 +0200 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Because it makes no sense
>
> A change in the copyright policies and ownership of a project is usually
> seen as a very big change, so much that usually the project change its
> whole name, not just its major version.
>
> > doing a GCC release is lots of work and GCC has a
> > roughly yearly release cadence for a reason.
>
> Actually an year of delay on such policy change would be very welcome.
>
> I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
>
> > You can always cherry-pick any changes assigned to FSF from trunk to
> > 11.1 on your own
>
> Sure, I can.
>
> But most users usually download tarballs.
>
> Having the first non-FSF-copyrighted version in a new version would be
> very appreciated by many organizations around the world that prefer
> to have as few legal dependencies as possible.
>
> That's why it's a major change for people downstream!
>
> Giacomo

It all depends on whether the maintainer wants it included.  Has
nothing to do with legal dependencies.  Suppose a person gives
you a free software license, but at a later time changes the
license.  You would still be able to use the code, and distribute
modified copies.  What has to happen is for developers to ask
their employers to issue them with a "Disclamer of Copyright
Statement".

The major problem is still linked to the reality that many
business administrators have a grasping attitude towards
software, science, and knowledge in general, seeing any activity or
knowledge only as opportunities for unjust income, not as
opportunities to contribute to human knowledge.

Workers today have no rights in the new digital world.

- Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project (Geocomputation)

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 at 2:36 AM
> From: "Jason Merrill via Gcc" 
> To: "Mark Wielaard" 
> Cc: "Florian Weimer" , "gcc Mailing List" 
> 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:10 AM Mark Wielaard  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:05:24AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > > > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered
> > by
> > > > > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions?  How is it possible to move
> > code
> > > > > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave
> > > > > only permission to license under the open source license "indicated
> > in
> > > > > the file"?
> > > >
> > > > Depends on which DCO you uses. Various project use the following DCO,
> > > > which makes clear you assign permissions under all applicable licenses
> > > > (this helps if the project uses more than one, possibly incompatible,
> > > > license and/or is dual licensed):
> > >
> > > See above.  The issue is if the project wants to change the status of
> > > a file from GPL to GPL plus exception.  It can't do that if there
> > > was a change to the file made by somebody who did't assign the copyright.
> > > What's said in the DCO you cite doesn't help.
> >
> > Right. The point wasn't so much as "here is the perfect DCO", but more
> > that the DCO as used for the linux kernel project might not be the
> > best for the GCC project given that GCC is not really a monolitic
> > project, but a collection of compiler/runtime modules each with their
> > own licence/exeception statements. So we might need tweaks for the
> > specific way we reuse code between modules. Or when using GPLed code
> > in the GFDLed manual.
> >
>
> This all seems much more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.  We
> don't reuse code between the compiler and the runtimes, and the runtimes
> are all either GPL3+GCC Runtime Exception or under a permissive license, so
> moving code between them isn't a problem.  As far as I know, we have never
> asked the FSF to relicense anything since the GPL3 move except for the
> target macro documentation strings, which are easily handled by changing
> them in both places at once.
>
> Jason

In my experience, the theoretical problem you claim is a real problem.  When
everything is assigned to the FSF any technical use problems (license 
compatibility)
could be legally solved very simply by re-licensing to whatever is appropriate
because the FSF owned the copyright.

With the change, contributors got to be extremely careful on how they use and
license code.  And it is very easy for people to screw things up for them and 
others.

Computer Science schools continue to produce graduates lacking practice 
competency and
new skills required in using legal instruments in the market economy.  And I 
have seen
lawyers that spent the bulk of their practice years with technology, yet 
continue
to suffer from hangovers that are the residual of a professional life spent 
primarily
among other lawyers who practiced in a different era.

Be prepared for a lot of trouble if you want developers to handle licensing 
independently.
My recommendation has been to continue with the current system of copyright 
assignment
to a single entity.  And only allow the use of additional contributions for 
unique and
special situations that arise.  Because there could be a time where you would 
not be
able to use that piece of code.  The biggest problem is loosing the right to 
distribution.
The distribution right is problematic in all sorts of ways.  You would then 
need to re-code
a lot of things again.  That has happened to me before.

So I would say that if you can transfer the copyright, do it.

- Christopher Dimech

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 7:58 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Mark Wielaard" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On 2021-06-01 07:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> >
> >> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> >> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation.  GCC
> >> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> >> General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> >> without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> >> the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
> >> Linux kernel.
> >>
> >> Contributors who have an FSF Copyright Assignment don't need to
> >> change anything.  Contributors who wish to utilize the Developer
> >> Certificate
> >> of Origin[1] should add a Signed-off-by message to their commit
> >> messages.
> >> Developers with commit access may add their name to the DCO list in
> >> the
> >> MAINTAINERS file to certify the DCO for all future commits in lieu of
> >> individual
> >> Signed-off-by messages for each commit.
> >
> > This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> > Why was there no public discussion on this?
> >
> > I certainly understand not wanting to assign copyright to the FSF
> > anymore given the recent board decisions. But changing GCC from having
> > a shared copyright pool to having lots of individual (or company?)
> > copyright holders seems like a regression for a strong copyleft
> > project.
> >
> > With individual copyright holders companies no longer have clear way to
> > know whether they are in compliance unless they talk to each and every
> > individual copyright holder (see also the linux kernel, where there are
> > some individuals who randomly sue companies just to get some money to
> > drop the lawsuit). And for users it will be harder to get compliant
> > sources if they can no longer simply ask the shared copyright holder,
> > but instead will have to get enough individual copyright holders to get
> > a distributor into compliance.
> >
> > If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> > holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> > that role and helps us as a project with copyleft compliance?
>
> Personally, this would have been my preference.

One thing to consider is whether there exists any legal expertise for this.
This obsession of GCC to disassociate from the FSF is unskilled and unnecessary.
Much effort should rather be put upon doing real work, opposing the European 
Union
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that came into force on 7 
June
2019.

> > I would be happy to setup a shared copyright pool under the Conservancy
> > Copyleft Compliance project for example:
> > https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark

- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:20 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" 
> To: "DJ Delorie" 
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
>
> > > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > > the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> > > any later version.
> > >
> > > To me that means the recipient of the software can relicense it under
> > > a later license.  It doesn't say to me that the original distribution
> > > can do so.
> >
> > I've never read it that way.  To me it says "a recipient may
> > redistribute it under terms of a newer license, but the license remains
> > v3+ even if they do" - we're giving the recipient a choice of actions,
> > but not power to relicense.
>
>  My interpretation of this would be for modifications rather than original
> sources, so v3+ applies to unmodified sources (for obvious reasons, given
> that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a
> copyright holder I can release my modifications say under v4 or v4+.  It
> is unclear to me if the newer licence will then "stick" to the rest of the
> sources, but I suspect it will.  A copyright assignment made to FSF (or
> another legal entity) prevents this complication from happening.
>
>   Maciej

No.  What the copyright holder can do is the re-license by any other license
he wants (even proprietary).  But you can't !!!  That's the basic difference.


- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

A file should be kept with the author name, date and changes done by each 
contributor.

Including this is the source code would make the history too long.  Otherwise, 
such information
can be put at the end of the file.

- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/


> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:44 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers" 
> To: "David Edelsohn" 
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> > The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> > Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Authors" should not
> include a date - that's following the recommendations at
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/
> for the form of copyright notices in projects with many copyright holders.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
>

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , "Jakub Jelinek" 
> , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > >  It is a real problem.  As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> > > removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> > > because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> > > person and who I am sure would make no fuss about it) has since passed
> > > away.
> >
> > That assumes that one wants to use the original developer version.  But if 
> > a maintainer
> > wants to include and support that piece of code for some particular reason, 
> > he should be
> > able to do it.  A free software license should not stop us from using the 
> > code, whether he
> > died or not.  Indeed the licensing is there to avoid such problems.  It is 
> > also legally
> > enforceable.  It was one of wy arguments in favour.
>
>  You can use and modify original code under the terms of the original
> licence (provided it permitted it), but you cannot change the licence,
> because you are not a copyright holder for that piece of code.
>
>   Maciej


You can change it as much as the license allows you.  The gpl is intended to 
give you
back all the rights taken from you by copyright.  Thusly, you are not restricted
by anyone because they have the copyright of the original work.  It's important 
that
you understand this.

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:09 AM
> From: "Paul Smith" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The current, active license in GPL v3.0.  This is not an announcement
> > of any change in license.
> >
> > Quoting Jason Merrill:
> >
> > "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> > to be a GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from
> > anyone."
>
> It depends on what you mean by "move to it".
>
> It's true that anyone could redistribute it under GPLv4.
>
> What's not true is that you can *change the license*.  For example you
> can't change the current wording of the license from "GPL version 3 or
> later" to "GPL version 4 or later".  Or make any other changes to the
> license, without collecting approval from all copyright holders.
>
> So, if there should be some issue with GPLv3 so that you really want to
> stop using it (maybe a court case is decided which negates a
> significant element of GPLv3 and GPLv4 is released to address the
> issue), it won't be possible to do that easily.
>
> Someone else mentioned that new code could be released only under that
> license so that in effect the entirety of the codebase becomes GPLv4+.
>
> I'm not sure about that.  Doing that for brand new files that were
> created solely by one person who wanted to use GPLv4 or later only
> would work I suppose.  But adding changes to an existing file that was
> GPLv3+ and saying that these new changes are GPLv4+ would be pretty
> gross.  You might have to list both licenses in these files, since you
> can't change the previously-in-use license unless you get agreement
> from the FSF, who currently holds the license, plus anyone else who
> changed the file since the assignment was relaxed.

You can actually re-license with another compatible license.
GPLv3+ would allow you to re-license the code as GPLv4+

You do not have to keep all the previous licenses because the intention of the
gpl is to give back to users those rights which copyright would otherwise 
withold.

> Personally I think that while assignment is a PITA and I wish it were
> easier, it is extremely valuable and provides a lot of flexibility, and
> shouldn't be abandoned without very, VERY careful consideration.
>
> And, that decision and those considerations should be documented and
> the responses to the issues raised here published for everyone to see.
>


- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" 
> To: "Paul Koning" 
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> > That seems to create a possible future complication.  Prior to this
> > change, the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as
> > replacing the GPL 2 license by GPL 3.  With the policy change, that
> > would no longer be possible, unless you get the approval of all the
> > copyright holders.  This may not be considered a problem, but it does
> > seem like a change.
>
>  It is a real problem.  As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> person and who I am sure would make no fuss about it) has since passed
> away.
>
>   Maciej

That assumes that one wants to use the original developer version.  But if a 
maintainer
wants to include and support that piece of code for some particular reason, he 
should be
able to do it.  A free software license should not stop us from using the code, 
whether he
died or not.  Indeed the licensing is there to avoid such problems.  It is also 
legally
enforceable.  It was one of wy arguments in favour.


- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/

Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

I am pleased to see a change based on my recommendation.  The FSF should not 
refrain
from accepting contributions based on modified versions of software in instances
where the developer of the modified work is unable to get a copyright assignment
of the code, but are legally allowed to use a compatible license without 
requiring
copyright.

- Christopher Dimech

Society has became too quick to pass judgement and declare someone Persona 
Non-Grata,
the most extreme form of censure a country can bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard Stallman.  
Times of great
crisis are also times of great opportunity. I call upon you to make this 
struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.gnu.org/


> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 2:28 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" 
> To: "David Edelsohn" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation.  GCC
> > will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
> > General Public License v3.0. GCC will now accept contributions with or
> > without an FSF copyright assignment. This change is consistent with
> > the practices of many other major Free Software projects, such as the
> > Linux kernel.
> >
> > Contributors who have an FSF Copyright Assignment don't need to
> > change anything.  Contributors who wish to utilize the Developer Certificate
> > of Origin[1] should add a Signed-off-by message to their commit messages.
> > Developers with commit access may add their name to the DCO list in the
> > MAINTAINERS file to certify the DCO for all future commits in lieu of 
> > individual
> > Signed-off-by messages for each commit.
>
> This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> Why was there no public discussion on this?
>
> I certainly understand not wanting to assign copyright to the FSF
> anymore given the recent board decisions. But changing GCC from having
> a shared copyright pool to having lots of individual (or company?)
> copyright holders seems like a regression for a strong copyleft
> project.
>
> With individual copyright holders companies no longer have clear way to
> know whether they are in compliance unless they talk to each and every
> individual copyright holder (see also the linux kernel, where there are
> some individuals who randomly sue companies just to get some money to
> drop the lawsuit). And for users it will be harder to get compliant
> sources if they can no longer simply ask the shared copyright holder,
> but instead will have to get enough individual copyright holders to get
> a distributor into compliance.
>
> If we no longer want the FSF to be the legal guardian and copyright
> holder for GCC could we please find another legal entity that performs
> that role and helps us as a project with copyleft compliance?
>
> I would be happy to setup a shared copyright pool under the Conservancy
> Copyleft Compliance project for example:
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>

Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC Steering Committee

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

You got to understand what an employee 100% of the time means.
It means to be 100% Employer-Owned - It is the Culture of Ownership.

But the tyrannical double standard do-gooders and the continued pretense
that they're trying to help people in this society (e.g. women,
minorities, free software, etc) is a lot more destructive.

Am pleased to know you are allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you
want to, without being controlled or limited.  Have had developers here
who have contacted me privately to tell me how amazed they are seeing
me pushing my ideas about what software and project administration is.
People who describe me as toxic, abusive, entitled, a jerk, a troll,
a donkey and a twit... A very long list indeed.  Because the only people
they are willing to accept are people like themselves.

My guess is that in their meetings, they sit around discussing who is
worthy to join this wonderful group that they are.  Sitting around
trying to decide who would get to be allowed into this developer
group.

The whole thing is rotten because the purpose of the group is mostly
centered on deciding who could have this honor.

> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:42 PM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC 
> Steering Committee
>
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is 
> > highly problematic,
> > I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> > message over Linux MAINTAINERS
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=4acd47644ef1e1c8f8f5bc40b7cf1c5b9bcbbc4e
> >
> > Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation):
> >
> > "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work 
> > in any way
> > on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account as a 
> > "hobby". You
> > are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
> > Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you a 
> > 1 time
> > exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change."
> >
> >
> > This is happened yesterday (literally).
>
> I know nothing of this case other than the link you sent.  But it seems
> to me that the complaint from IBM is that the developer used his private
> gmail address here rather than his IBM address.
>
> It is normal practice in most countries that if you are employed full
> time to do a certain type of job, then you can't do the same kind of
> work outside of the job without prior arrangement with the employer.
> That applies whether it is extra paid work, or unpaid (hobby) work.
> This is partly because it can quickly become a conflict of interests,
> and partly because you are supposed to be refreshed and ready for work
> each day and not tired out from an all-night debugging session on a
> different project.
>
> Usually employers are quite flexible about these things unless there is
> a clear conflict of interests (like working on DB2 during the day, and
> Postgresql in the evening).  Some employers prefer to keep things
> standardised and rigid.
>
> A company like IBM that is heavily involved in Linux kernel coding will
> want to keep their copyrights and attributions clear.  So if they have
> an employee that is working on this code - whether it is part of their
> day job or not - it makes sense to insist that attributions, maintainer
> contact information and copyrights all make it clear that the work is
> done by an IBM employee.  It is not only IBM's right to insist on this,
> it might also be a legal obligation.
>
> (It is quite possible that this guy's manager could have expressed
> things a bit better - we are not privy to the rest of the email or any
> other communication involved.)
>
>
> This is precisely why copyright assignment for the FSF can involve
> complicated forms and agreements from contributors' employers.
>
>
> >
> > And while this is IBM, the other US corporations with affiliations in
> > the Steering Committee are no better: 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235777.html
> >
>
> I can't see any relevance in that post other than your "big corporations
> are completely evil because there are examples of them being bad" comments.
>
> > I can understand that some of you consider working for such corporations "a 
> > joy".
> > But for the rest of us, and to most people outside the US, their influence
> > over the leadership of GCC is a threat.
>
> Please stop claiming to speak for anyone but yourself.  You certainly do
> not speak for /me/.  I don't work for "such corporations", I am outside
> the US, but I do not see IBM or others having noticeable influence over
> gcc and thus there is no threat.
>
> David
>

Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC Steering Committee

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

Obviously the dude was not Eric Raymond, because he would have sent the
IBM Fuckhead an appropriate reply.  These are the developers at IBM,
who after being watched by the IBM Panopticon, they obey!

Now repeat after me,
"Whenever I hear the voice say,
'Now, listen to me, ' I will obey."
"When I hear the voice say,
'Now, listen to me, ' I will obey."

> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 7:37 PM
> From: "Eric Botcazou" 
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC 
> Steering Committee
>
> > Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation):
> >
> > "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work
> > in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account
> > as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
> > Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you a 1
> > time exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change."
> >
> >
> > This is happened yesterday (literally).
>
> Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.  IBM, like
> other corporations, has made significant technical contributions to GCC over
> the years, for example the scheduler and the vectorizer, and thus has assigned
> the copyright of these contributions to the FSF.
>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
>
>
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:47 PM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan Wakely" 
> 
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
> same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
> arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
> to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
> to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
> to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
> *all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
> it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
>
> > > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users'
> > > opinions
> > > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
> >
> > That depends on the user.
> >
> > Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users,
> > i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely
> > available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the
> > case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making
> > proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's
> > a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of
> > value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's
> > users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way
> > in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment
> > should be to using this piece of software to build their
> > products/businesses.
>
> It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
> current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
> consult their opinions on the matter? It's amazing how much effort is being
> expended to silence opposition, whilst not even one argument has been made
> as to how breaking from FSF/GNU will result in a better technical outcome.

Is that right!!!  Users want to build their products and businesses?
Sounds very corporate to me, with wording that suggests the provision
of resources working on other projects for personal profit.  The users
watching in horror are most likely developers who see Richard Stallman
as an obstacle.

GCC can never break from Gnu.  They can only break from gnu, clone gcc and call
it something else such as gcc-fuckup, gcc-screw and the like.  Then, if they
manage to fuckup the licensing or the compatibility with Gcc, we shall wait for
a new generation of forward thinking hackers to join us.  The success of Gcc was
achieved to large extent due to the personal efforts of Rms.

These people never learned from the Cygnus EGCS Saga, because they cannot get
beyond the short-sighted viewpoint of "always disobey every authority".
The U.S.S. Cygnus was a "Death Ship".  Reinhardt had planned to fly her
through the black hole but suffered sever damage and was torn apart.

> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:06 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" 
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 2021-04-18 23:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: 
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly 
> > conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
> > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the 
> > dissenting
> > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" 
> > --
> > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because 
> > we
> > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day 
> > are
> > coming from the pro-forking side.
> 
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing 
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
> 
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' 
> > opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
> 
> That depends on the user.
> 
> Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users, 
> i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely 
> available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the 
> case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making 
> proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's 
> a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of 
> value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's 
> users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way 
> in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment 
> should be to using this piece of software to build their 
> products/businesses.

Completely false.  Free software's developers were people who were disgusted
with the communities of software developers that started restricting users.
The Free Software Community wanted software that they could use and modify
code for any purpose, notwithstanding any prohibition other developers 
wanted to impose on them.

The hackers of the 70s and 80s who transformed computing and the early 
internet were known for their wit.  This included using a playboy photo
of Lena Söderberg for image processing.  They had got tired of the 
usually dull test images used at conferences.  She rapidly became 
the First Lady of Computing.  Many were very happy to meet her in person
and ask her an autograph.  n 1997, Forsén worked for a government agency
supervising  disabled employees who archived data using computers and
scanners.  In 2015, she was guest of honor at the banquet of IEEE, 
delivering a speech, and chairing the best paper award ceremony.

Those were exciting times, but by now government-sepported and
corporation-supported organizations have caught up; what was once
a liberating technology has become a conduit for surveillance and
manipulation.  

Even a chimp can write code.  So I give the reply attributed to 
Eric Raymond, after Microsoft offerred him a job.

I'd thank you for your offer of employment at Microsoft, except
that it indicates that either you or your research team (or both)
couldn't get a clue if it were pounded into you with baseball bats.
What were you going to do with the rest of your afternoon, offer jobs
to Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds?  Or were you going to stick to
something easier, like talking Pope Benedict into presiding at a
Satanist orgy? - Eric Raymond

There was a time when I felt too much at odds with Eric, but today
he has became a friend.

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:10 PM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
>
> The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> coming from the pro-forking side.
>
> Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
> exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
> who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
> are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
> behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
> kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
>
> > Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> > Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> > censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> > them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> > popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> > unsound as other fallacies.
>
> I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
> who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
> interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
> left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
> conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
> childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
>
> > It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> > requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> > answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> > prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
>
> I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
> community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
> whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
> fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
> any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
> that I recognize.

That's quite accurate.  I can see again the emergence of the phreakers
types of the 1980's, the minority that were up to no good.  Want to join
the club Frosku?


> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 4:58 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" , "GCC Development" 
> , "Ville Voutilainen" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 2021-04-18 00:38, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
> > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to
> > command
> > the ISS.  He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red
> > Hat.
> > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported
> > everything
> > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
>
> And yet, here we are 10 years later, the ISS is still running RHEL...

Like the One Laptop per Child established with the goal of transforming
education for children around the world; which shut down.

When you and your friends wake up in the morning you should never roll to
the left because you could cause damage to the system.

The right side is more stable.  Good Night.

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 2:51 AM
> From: "David Malcolm via Gcc" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric
> because I worry that it will encourage him.  I wrote a long rebuttal to
> his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women
> but didn't send it in the hope of reducing the temperature of the
> conversation.
>
> That said...
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc :
> > > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists.
> > >
> > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication
> > > Guidelines
> > > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html).
> > >
> > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off
> > > the
> > > GCC mailing list.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Ian
> >
> > Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code
> > alone."
> >
> > This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm.
>
> Or we could ignore the false dilemma that Eric is asserting, and
> instead moderate the list, or even just moderate those who have never
> contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list.
>
> Personally, I've been moving all posts by Christopher Dimech to this
> list direct from my inbox to my archive without reading them for the
> last several days, and it's helped my mood considerably.  He's been
> prolifically posting to the list recently, but in the 8 years I've been
> involved in gcc development I've never heard of him before this thing
> kicked off, and the stuff I've had the misfortune to see by him appears
> to me to be full of conspiracy theories and deranged raving.  The clue
> might have been when he referred to us as "bitches".

> "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they
> start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander
> to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like
> this one alive.
>
> I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with
> arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the
> simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation.  That
> might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but
> seems absurdly out-of-date to me today.
>
> As usual, these are my opinions only, not necessarily those of my
> employer

The deranged raving is the disclaimer every time an employee posts
something.


> Dave
>
>
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

Some had contacted me about it.  Could have sent response off the list.


> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner" 
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> > It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that
> > people choose.
>
> I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default"
> in any sense.  What's being given here are reasons why some people
> prefer LLVM over GCC.
>
> > In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides
> > software products that are difficult or impossible to review.  Free
> > software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the
> > source code.  Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there.
>
> For a compiler, of course, you need a compiled version of it to start
> with.  If you use that same compiler to build itself, having the
> source code does *not* protect you from malware, as Ken Thompson
> showed back in 1984.  Even if you take the stance that you'll compile
> GCC with LLVM and vice versa, you still have the risk that both of the
> binaries have been compromised in this way.

There are tools that look for code that is not supposed to be there.
But people get sloppy and it's a lot of bother.  That's been my
experience.

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

But that was around 2017.  Perhaps people want to cut costs again - that's
not a new thing.  After all, they changed their mind in 2011 only because
they got in excess of 5000 attacks that year.  At any time in the past, I
would have decided that science was good for the Sapiens.  But now, with
hindsight...

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> To: "Richard Kenner" 
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC Development" 
> , siddh...@gotplt.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner  
> wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the use cases.  Not in military surveillance.  And certainly 
> > > not
> > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  At Boeing could be the same, 
> > > but
> > > I'm not sure.  Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
> > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology.  But
> > > things had really been going berserk around 2008.  From 2017 onwards,
> > > I'm somewhat in the dark.  They could have started allowing some ownership
> > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different
> > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts.
> >
> > I can't understand your point with this version either.   Sorry.
>
> I don't understand these ramblings either. LLNL sure seems to have
> flirted with LLVM:
> https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open-source-fortran-compiler-technology
> https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608523
> https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/wiki/Install-ROSE-with-Clang-as-frontend
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 10:49 PM
> From: "Richard Kenner" 
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> > Depends on the use cases.  Not in military surveillance.  And certainly not
> > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  At Boeing could be the same, but
> > I'm not sure.  Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
> > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology.  But
> > things had really been going berserk around 2008.  From 2017 onwards,
> > I'm somewhat in the dark.  They could have started allowing some ownership
> > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different
> > than ownership rights under commercial contracts.
>
> I can't understand your point with this version either.   Sorry.

It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that
people choose.  In those places, gcc is used.  No Microsoft (i.e. no Fortran
Developer Studio, or LLVM).  Before, I was using Microsoft Developer studio
as a student.  In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that
provides software products that are difficult or impossible to review.  Free
software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the source code.
Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there.

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" 
> , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
> >> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
> >> gcc because compiler-as-a-library.  License may have been a factor for
> >> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free
> >> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding
> >> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves.
> >
> > Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the
> > 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of
> > free software.  Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving
> > him a team to work on LLVM.
>
> It is irrelevant to the point I'm making.  If you're trying to assert
> that Lattner's hiring by Apple was the driving force behind the current
> llvm adoption then like I said before, it's blinkered.  Read my response
> again for a deeper context.
>
> >> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a
> >> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that
> >> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make
> >> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library.
> >
> > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
> > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command
> > the ISS.  He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat.
> > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything
> > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
>
> I can't parse what you're saying in response to my point about llvm
> being the default choice for all modern use cases of compiler technologies.

Depends on the use cases.  Not in military surveillance.  And certainly not
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  At Boeing could be the same, but
I'm not sure.  Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology.  But
things had really been going berserk around 2008.  From 2017 onwards,
I'm somewhat in the dark.  They could have started allowing some ownership
rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different
than ownership rights under commercial contracts.

> Siddhesh
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:06 PM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> To: "Aaron Gyes" 
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, 10:01 Christopher Dimech via Gcc, 
> wrote:
>
> > You don't have to believe me of course.  Go ask any lawyer worth her
> > salt and she'll tell you the same thing!
> >
>
>
> And if they don't tell you the same thing, they're obviously not a true
> Scotsman.

A lawyer can trick anybody to do anything. That's why you should have your own. 
;)

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

You don't have to believe me of course.  Go ask any lawyer worth her
salt and she'll tell you the same thing!


> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Aaron Gyes" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t 
> occurred after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are 
> wrong about the intent?
> 
> Aaron
> 
> > On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I know that Apple can make some strong ownership claims.  Also Red Hat,
> > but I consider it minimal.  Apple has a very long history of aggressive
> > legal actions. 
> > 
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM
> >> From: "Aaron Gyes" 
> >> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> >> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> >> 
> >> Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted?
> >> 
> >> –
> >> Aaron
> >> 
> >>> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  
>  Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:46 PM
>  From: "Aaron Gyes" 
>  To: "Christopher Dimech" 
>  Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>  
> > Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing 
> > patent
> > treachery.  The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to
> > allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.=
>  
>  “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate 
>  lawsuits?
> >>> 
> >>> Correct.   The Apache License included certain patent termination and 
> >>> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions.  
> >>> Originally, the LLVM License
> >>> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the 
> >>> 3-clause BSD license.  By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by 
> >>> hiring Chris Lattner
> >>> and giving him a team to work on LLVM.
> >>> 
>  That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there.
>  
>  Aaron
> >> 
> 
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" 
> , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
> >> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
> >> gcc because compiler-as-a-library.  License may have been a factor for
> >> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free
> >> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding
> >> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves.
> >
> > Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the
> > 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of
> > free software.  Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving
> > him a team to work on LLVM.
>
> It is irrelevant to the point I'm making.  If you're trying to assert
> that Lattner's hiring by Apple was the driving force behind the current
> llvm adoption then like I said before, it's blinkered.  Read my response
> again for a deeper context.

Of course not, but those who adopt it are for the most part ignorant
of the actual details.  Use it.  I won't.

> >> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a
> >> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that
> >> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make
> >> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library.
> >
> > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
> > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command
> > the ISS.  He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat.
> > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything
> > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
>
> I can't parse what you're saying in response to my point about llvm
> being the default choice for all modern use cases of compiler technologies.

Well.  You're wrong and I'm right.  LLVM is for suckers.  When one is ignorant,
one keeps to the default.  Then, when things don't work out as you think, don't
blame me.

> Siddhesh
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

Please refer to the *Exemptions* section listed in the link below

https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code

-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:46 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "Gabriel Ravier" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:15 PM, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> > I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete
> > bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously
> > do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy
> > that mandates at least 20 percent of custom-developed code (i.e. code
> > they fund the production of) has to be released as OSS (see
> > https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code)
>
> You see Free != OSS...
> 
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" 
> 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> > I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
> > that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
> > allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
> > without sharing proprietary code.  Intel, IBM, nVidia, etc. are
>
> I think this is a blinkered view.  Sure, there are companies that build
> proprietary toolchains using llvm as the base but I would argue that it
> is the *result* of the rise of llvm and not the cause.

> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
> gcc because compiler-as-a-library.  License may have been a factor for
> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free
> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding
> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves.

Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the
3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of
free software.  Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving
him a team to work on LLVM.

> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a
> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that
> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make
> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library.

Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala
began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command
the ISS.  He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat.
This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything
to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

> Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I
> know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the
> initial part of the decade.  In recent years I don't think I encountered
> any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that
> gcc is in maintenance mode.
>
> So to summarize, the reasons why llvm is gaining traction *today* (I'm
> sure there are more):
>
> - Compiler-as-a-library - llvm is the first choice in FOSS projects and
> use cases are exploding with gcc nowhere in sight
>
> - Mindshare - most students and researchers are focused on it
>
> - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc.  This
> includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce
> from various organizations and universities.
>
> - License - Companies are building proprietary solutions on top of llvm.
>
> Siddhesh
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" 
> To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" 
> 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> > I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
> > that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
> > allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
> > without sharing proprietary code.  Intel, IBM, nVidia, etc. are
>
> I think this is a blinkered view.  Sure, there are companies that build
> proprietary toolchains using llvm as the base but I would argue that it
> is the *result* of the rise of llvm and not the cause.
>
> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler
> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than
> gcc because compiler-as-a-library.  License may have been a factor for
> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free
> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding
> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves.
>
> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a
> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that
> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make
> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library.
>
> Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I
> know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the
> initial part of the decade.  In recent years I don't think I encountered
> any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that
> gcc is in maintenance mode.

For military focused PhDs, gcc is used.

> So to summarize, the reasons why llvm is gaining traction *today* (I'm
> sure there are more):
>
> - Compiler-as-a-library - llvm is the first choice in FOSS projects and
> use cases are exploding with gcc nowhere in sight
>
> - Mindshare - most students and researchers are focused on it
>
> - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc.  This
> includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce
> from various organizations and universities.

You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software,
because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it.

> - License - Companies are building proprietary solutions on top of llvm.
>
> Siddhesh
>

A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression
that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license
allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form
without sharing proprietary code. -  NightStrike

You are correct.  LLVM is under the Apache License Version 2.0, which is a
free software license compatible with the GNU GPL Version 3.0.

But the license comes with LLVM Exceptions that nullifies the Apache License,
because it then allows others to embedded their work into object form.
Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent
treachery.  The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to
allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.

Consequently, the LLVM Owners are being extremely dishonest, because they
are using the words "Apache License" to trick people into believing that
the LLVM License has anything to do with free software.  It does not.

Regards
Christopher

A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

You have specified that the community does not require my approval or that
of Eric Raymond.  That is true of course.  But many have gone through so
much new age training that they ended up with a very sophisticated way
of bullshitting themselves.

Regards
Christopher

> I'll see my work in GCC11 through (there's one remaining patch review to
> address this week); I don't like leaving things in a half assed state if
> I can avoid it. The work to finish out C++20 library support features
> which passed through the Concurrency and Parallelism study group (SG-1)
> in WG21 on their way to being standardized will be, for now, done in a
> public repo with GPL license sans-FSF assignment. Other work which I
> have initiated to replace the dependency on Thread Building Blocks
> within the Parallel STL algorithms (PSTL); something required for this
> part of libstdc++ to no longer be marked 'experimental' will not be done
> with a GPL license and will not, as a result, be assigned to the FSF.

Using a GPL and assigning copyright are two different things though.

> It is my hope, and expectation, that that work will become part of GCC12
> and GCC13 respectively, and I will know in the fullness of time if that
> expectation is to be met.
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:40 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "Jason Merrill" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > I do not see people really intending to fork.  It explains why detractors
> > have gone berserk.
>
> I appreciate your colorful exaggerations, but I should point out that
> the libstdc++
> maintainer has stated his intention to fork, in unambigous terms. A helper
> elf of his has stated that he will follow the fork, if it occurs. I'm
> politely entertaining
> the possibility that you missed that, but Mr. Wakely is not joking
> when he indicates
> that he wishes to do a non-FSF fork of lbistdc++.

Talk facts not rhetoric.  What I have seen is people trying to resolve
the problem without resorting to an actual complete fork.  For this to
happen, people would have to agree on things they would not be completely
satisfied about.

If the fork is presented as a threat, things are not going to work well.
I am not complaining about a decision, whatever that is.  But parading
nuclear missiles means nothing - that I should know.

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:07 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> To: "Jason Merrill" 
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 19:01, Jason Merrill  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:49 AM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
> >  wrote:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> > > > From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> > > > To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> > > > Cc: "GCC Development" 
> > > > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > > > > > The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> > > > > > seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> > > > > > considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > Due to their being paid for the work.  Have no doubt that if others
> > > > > were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
> > > > > contributors.  Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.
> > > >
> > > > How convenient to make that claim and just bypass what's said in the 
> > > > next bit:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some of them don't need to perform a "power grab"; they
> > > > > > already have all the power fathomable, by virtue of being 
> > > > > > maintainers
> > > > > > and active developers.
> > > >
> > > > I very much doubt your lofty hypothesis that if "others" were being 
> > > > paid, the
> > > > contributions would "likely drown" the current contributors. Especially
> > > > when we're talking about people who have submitted pretty close to ZERO
> > > > patches to GCC. You can give a claim that a person $foo would contribute
> > > > if being paid to do it. I'll buy that claim if you're talking about 
> > > > people like
> > > > Nathan Sidwell and Iain Sandoe from the time before they became active
> > > > contributors again, now that they've been hired to do that. I will not
> > > > buy that claim about people who haven't been GCC contributors before.
> > >
> > > There are many users of gcc who are more qualified to know what is needed
> > > in gcc, than developers.  That does not mean than I want to diminish their
> > > authority for gcc.  But that authority was still conferred to them by the
> > > the Gnu Project - which demands responsibility to carry out the assigned
> > > tasks to the best of their ability, not to excoriate their obligation 
> > > towards
> > > the project itself.
> > >
> > > The ultimate authority is the final responsibility of the Gnu Project,
> > > not only that of gcc.
> >
> > Free Software means there is no ultimate authority.  In Free Software,
> > leadership of the development process is by the "consent of the
> > governed".  If there is sufficient objection to the existing
> > leadership, developers can change it, either by negotiation for
> > changes with the current leadership or by forking.

Even when there is insufficient objection, one can fork.  Progressing
this to extreme, suppose one person disagrees with all the rest, he can
fork.  There are no qualms about that.

> > The EGCS fork happened because a critical mass of developers gave up
> > on the GNU GCC2 leadership model.  The reconciliation happened because
> > GNU agreed to accept the EGCS development model as GNU GCC.
> >
> > I hope to resolve the current crisis by leadership adjustments
> > something along the lines of Ville's proposal, rather than forking.

I do not see people really intending to fork.  It explains why detractors
have gone berserk.

> > Jason
>
> That's pretty much all I ask. Jason, Jeff, Thomas, others, please
> discuss this matter
> among the maintainers, and if need be, among the SC, and make a decision, or
> at least provide an indication of how you see these matters. I think
> that indication
> gives us megabytes more data than philosophical discussions will, entertaining
> as they might be.
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

Fundamentally, "micro-aggressions" describe insults and dismissals. 
Interpreting insults and dismissals as aggression leads only to
an atrophy of the skills needed to mediate one's own disputes with
others.  I oppose the use of the term absolutely.

-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 8:27 PM
> From: "Aaron Gyes via Gcc" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> > I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
> > that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
> > exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line
> > of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e.
> > LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison
> > to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney
> > and SF -- and those are all still large international cities.
> 
> 
> Give me a break Forsku.
> 
> Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel disenfranchised by
> this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of 
> conduct,
> or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived 
> experiences
> or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC?
> 
> > The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North
> > America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent
> > the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't
> > important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group,
> > it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which
> > over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the
> > world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America.
> 
> 
> As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America.
> 
> Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China.
> 
> It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread
> when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these 
> proposals
> to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being forced to 
> either
> defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this conversation.
> 
> What is even the argument you are making at this point?
> 
> Aaron
> 
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:41 PM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , "Andrew Pinski" , 
> "Andrew Pinski via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> > And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> > problem in term of global and local distribution of wealth and power
> > and thus interprets it as a matter of sex, gender and race.
> >
> > Which is obviously totally fine for rich men, as it distract people's
> > attention from the root of their power and won't really fix the problem.
>
> Did you ever notice that income group (in a global sense) is never a
> protected characteristic in these COCs which proclaim to defend the
> disenfranchised and the disadvantaged? It would seem to me that low income
> is the greatest predictor of disadvantage globally.

The one thing that would make a difference is if the rich take on the idea
of sharing.  The reason that communism failed was because the idea of sharing
was taken on by the poor, who had nothing to offer.

If there is going to be progress regarding the way the free software movement
sees things, mocking day and night those who have things to offer is stupid.
I have no intention of going there, or trying to buy a ticket to heaven with
my goodness.

> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Gerald Pfeifer" , "Frosku" 
> 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Hi Gerald,,
> 
> On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer  wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American
> > companies
> > > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative
> > > of the free software grassroots community
> > 
> > I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" 
> > interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy.
> 
> 
> So much that in fact, we are talking about some of the most controversial
> corporation in the whole world.
> 
> And while we are talking about "toxic emailers", it's not lost to me
> the irony that all this divisive debate about inclusive and righteous 
> behaviour started with an email of a Facebook employee that defines
> working in Facebook "a joy".
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html
>
> Yeah the same Facebook that still does what Cambridge Analytica used to.

It's worse than that.  Facebook provides the soil and nourishment 
for companies like Cambridge Analytica to grow.   

Some early work on "The Shift News" exposed facebook profiles used
to spread rumours about the government’s perceived enemies including
the family of slain journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017.

Her police protection was removed entirely in 2013 when the Labour party
- a frequent target of her investigations - returned to power.

https://theshiftnews.com/2018/05/27/the-shift-news-disinformation-watch-fake-facebook-account-behind-unsubstantiated-attacks-on-opposition-mp/

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/daphne-caruana-galizia-qa-intl/index.html
 
> > It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the
> > maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of
> > the color of their passports.
> 
> This is a strawman.
> 
> People are just concerned about the undue influence that these controversial 
> corporations can have on GCC through the influence they have on their 
> employees.
> 
> It would be overly naive to pretend that the Steering Committee members' 
> are not influenced by their affiliations, even if we were not talking about 
> the
> champions of surveillance capitalism.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with their integrity.
> 
> Why should they have declared such affiliations in the SC's web page,
> if they were irrelevant?
> 
> Because they acknowledge that their affiliations have a non-negligible
> influence on what they do and what they do not.
> 
> 
> Also this has nothing to do with their passports.
> 
> In fact, as you say,
> 
> > The majority of the FSF board, 
> > FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell.
> 
> 
> It was Nathan who framed his request in term of culture, politics and
> whiteness and priviledge...
> 
> And since the GCC Steering Committe did what he requested, we have to
> assume that these are the kind of arguments that we have to debunk,
> providing you with a more varied perspective.
> 
> But unfortunately you keep invalidating our perspective because... we are 
> "jerks".
> 
> 
> Giacomo
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:25 PM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Aaron Gyes" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku  wrote:
> > > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> > > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
> >
> > I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you
> > all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even
> > asserted professionalism should be required of professionals.
> >
> > Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards.
> >
> > I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already
> > Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the
> > context
> > of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist
> > in
> > this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your
> > hostility.
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> If you could kindly refrain from making repeated character attacks and
> trying to imply that because I disagree with you on policy I must be
> some kind of knuckle-dragging bigot, that would be a really good start
> to having a productive discussion. Perhaps instead of talking about
> whether I'm "obsessive", want to "act like an asshole", etc we can
> pretend we've been through that tiring exercise and discuss substance.
> 
> My "hostility" to codes of conduct is that I have little confidence that
> they would be applied evenly (in which case, the way you've spoken to me
> thus far would surely not be considered proper conduct as you've taken
> little time to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks and implications)
> and would instead be used as a battering ram against people who are a)
> neurodivergent and struggle with social norms or b) are from different
> cultures which are more direct in communication style.
> 
> It's all well and good to talk the talk of diversity and inclusion, but
> it seems to me that what's actually achieved is locking out some of the
> most isolated and vulnerable people -- who have found a home in our
> community -- in order to make some of the most privileged people in
> society more comfortable. *That* is the source of my hostility to what
> I believe is for the most part a noble but misguided proposal.

There are times where *not to act* is the solution.  If the United States
and the Soviet Union acted upon aggressiveness by the other during tho last
century, the global ecosystem would have been wiped out.  Human development
and progress brought us the capability for complete annihilation.  More
like "Star Wars" than "Star Trek".  More like 1984 and a Utopia. 
 
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:09 PM
> From: "Gerald Pfeifer" 
> To: "Frosku" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
> > the free software grassroots community
>
> I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies"
> interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy.
>
> It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the
> maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of
> the color of their passports.

> Personally I care about quality of what we ship, supporting our
> users, and upholding the principles of free software/open source.
> And I am willing to bet this applies to the vast majority of us.
>
> So please stop those unfounded allegations.
>
> Gerald
>
> PS: Our release managers, for example, are British (Joseph), Czech
> (Jakub), and German (Richi), IIRC.  The majority of the FSF board,
> FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell.

It all depends on the quality of the people running it and in it.
RMS is certainly top quality considering he got so many minds to
start thinking straight about how software is developed and used.
Nation is just an idea.  The idea of nation is made because of
sameness, of race, religion, ethnicity, ideologies, languages.

The free software movement is in defiance of all those things.
A total defiance of the sameness.  Many people in our community
have still to figure out *how to be* in our community.  Many
are getting it wrong.  And it shows.

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:15 AM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku  wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive 
> > > away
> > > talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's 
> > > norms
> > > within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural
> > > standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their
> > > entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) 
> > > seems
> > > very invasive and culturally exclusionary.
> >
> > I do live in California, but I don't know what the "California
> > cultural standard" is. It's a big place, and it's full of people who
> > behave in all kinds of different ways. Harvey Weinstein and
> > brogrammer culture are California cultures. You presumably have
> > something in mind, but I'm not sure it's a real thing.
> 
> There isn't a real name for any given culture because culture is such an 
> organic
> thing. When I think of codes of conduct I come back to i.e. Linus giving 
> people
> a hard time in code reviews, or Coraline Ada Ehmke's critiques of meritocracy.
> Neither of these beliefs about what culture should be (Linus' or Coraline's) 
> are
> objectively right or objectively wrong, but both are likely to attract 
> different
> people, and result in different outcomes.

We will certainly have to adapt to the recognition that the human race is in 
great
danger because of our politics going crazy and nationalism being a serious 
treat.  
Our world must turn itself into a new set of people that is unlike the 
generation
that brought us in free software - just one corner of the western world.  In 
2016, Cosmologist Stephen Hawking warned us to stop reaching out to aliens 
before it's 
too late.  His assessment was that distant alien civilisations might view us as
inferior, weak, and perfect to conquer.  

We barely averted nuclear annihilation in the later half of last century.  The 
problem
is that we have not adapted ourselves to control all the power we already have. 
 Science and technology has empowered us too much.  After destroying much of 
the vegetal and animal species on Earth, we have started destroying ourselves, 
like other civilisations have destroyed themselves in the past.  But this time, 
the collapse may be global.

Good luck with death! 
 
> When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. 
> It's
> just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and 
> any
> culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that
> commonality. You will have ideas about what is welcoming, what is polite, etc
> which are shaped by your upbringing just as I or anyone else does. These are
> not objective truths, or internationally accepted as such.
> 
> > > I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is
> > > related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in 
> > > China,
> > > Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political 
> > > doctrine
> > > over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain.
> >
> > How did we get to accepting an entire political doctrine?
> >
> > What I have in mind is treating people with respect. For example, I'm
> > involved with the Go programming language. The Go community has a
> > code of conduct: https://golang.org/conduct. The key elements are:
> >
> > - Be friendly and welcoming
> > - Be patient
> > Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not
> > everyone is using their native language. (Meaning and tone can be lost
> > in translation.)
> > - Be thoughtful
> > Productive communication requires effort. Think about how your words
> > will be interpreted.
> > Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting.
> > - Be respectful
> > In particular, respect differences of opinion.
> > - Be charitable
> > Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to
> > disagree.
> > When we do disagree, try to understand why.
> >
> > Avoid destructive behavior:
> >
> > Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else,
> > start a new conversation.
> > Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of
> > affairs; offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may
> > be
> > improved.
> > Snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments)
> > Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too
> > often leads to unnecessary conflict.
> > Microaggressions: brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral and
> > environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or
> > negative slights and insults to a pe

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 2:42 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe via Gcc" 
> To: "GCC Development" 
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Kalamatee  wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc  wrote:
> 
> 
> > It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for  
> > public
> > review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair
> > and
> > technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or unwelcome
> > unrelated
> > attention).
> >
> > “Grow a thicker skin” is an appalling advertising slogan.
> >
> > I just want to clarify -  i am not posting these things to be a "troll"  
> > or awkward, but as someone that uses "your" toolchain, because we depend  
> > on it to build "our" operating system, and the actions (and inactions!)  
> > on this list are a bit disturbing when taken in context of the whole  
> > thread.
> >
> > I have a massive amount of respect for the people involved in developing  
> > gcc (which is far beyond my capabilities, of just developing patches to  
> > support the OS I contribute to), but I still have a vested interest in  
> > what happens because of the actions here - as do many corporate,  
> > commercial and academic institutes that invest money and time on "your"  
> > toolchain - so to exclude everyone except a group of people who have  
> > built a rapport in discussions that affect us feels a bit offensive to be  
> > honest.
> 
> I am saddened by the prospect that there might be no consensus available  
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has become so intertwined with different discussions it seems  
> that people are mistaking who has said what.
> 
> For the record (on-one needs to take my word for it, the list is archived).
> 
> * I am not being paid to work on GCC, I have been once (some time ago now)  
> - however almost all my input is voluntary over the 12 years or so since I  
> made my first commit.
> 
> * I have not:
> 
>expressed any opinion re RMS
>expressed any opinion re FSF or the desirability of a fork
> 
>said that people need to agree (technically or procedurally)
>required people to have rapport (I doubt that there is as much as folks 
> think).
> 
> I have said:
> 
>if people are not willing to resolve differences in a civilised manner, 
> that perhaps indicates that they have no interest in resolving anything.  
> This does not seem contrary to general GNU guidelines either: 
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html

It has been occurring to me that Nathan-and-Associates do not want a fork. 
This has became problematic because they do not seem to be able to successfully
run a Gnu Package because they would have to deal with RMS.  Although I have not
campaigned against their continuation as maintainers, they lobbied for my 
removal.  
And that's definitely not on! 

   

 
>I am not willing to spend my spare time working in a hostile environment.
> 
> well, I did post in good faith,
> Iain
> 
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > > The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> > > seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> > > considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.
> >
> > Due to their being paid for the work.  Have no doubt that if others
> > were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
> > contributors.  Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.
>
> How convenient to make that claim and just bypass what's said in the next bit:
>
> >
> > > Some of them don't need to perform a "power grab"; they
> > > already have all the power fathomable, by virtue of being maintainers
> > > and active developers.
>
> I very much doubt your lofty hypothesis that if "others" were being paid, the
> contributions would "likely drown" the current contributors. Especially
> when we're talking about people who have submitted pretty close to ZERO
> patches to GCC. You can give a claim that a person $foo would contribute
> if being paid to do it. I'll buy that claim if you're talking about people 
> like
> Nathan Sidwell and Iain Sandoe from the time before they became active
> contributors again, now that they've been hired to do that. I will not
> buy that claim about people who haven't been GCC contributors before.

There are many users of gcc who are more qualified to know what is needed
in gcc, than developers.  That does not mean than I want to diminish their
authority for gcc.  But that authority was still conferred to them by the
the Gnu Project - which demands responsibility to carry out the assigned
tasks to the best of their ability, not to excoriate their obligation towards
the project itself.

The ultimate authority is the final responsibility of the Gnu Project,
not only that of gcc.

> > > This whole discussion, again, at least to me, boils down to two
> > > things, actually three:
> >
> > It can also boil down about whether people want their work to form part
> > of the Gnu Project or not!!!
>
> Oh, sure it can. So perhaps we should do something along the lines of what
> Thomas outlined:
>
> - ask the maintainers what they want to do
> - then do that
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:03 AM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 15:46, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> > > The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> > > seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> > > considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.
> >
> > Due to their being paid for the work.  Have no doubt that if others
> > were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
> > contributors.  Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.
>
> How convenient to make that claim and just bypass what's said in the next bit:
>
> >
> > > Some of them don't need to perform a "power grab"; they
> > > already have all the power fathomable, by virtue of being maintainers
> > > and active developers.
>
> I very much doubt your lofty hypothesis that if "others" were being paid, the
> contributions would "likely drown" the current contributors. Especially
> when we're talking about people who have submitted pretty close to ZERO
> patches to GCC. You can give a claim that a person $foo would contribute
> if being paid to do it. I'll buy that claim if you're talking about people 
> like
> Nathan Sidwell and Iain Sandoe from the time before they became active
> contributors again, now that they've been hired to do that. I will not
> buy that claim about people who haven't been GCC contributors before.

Many do not contribute because they do not have time, resources or support.
Additionally, maintainers have always been aware that being a Gnu Maintainer
meant that coordinating activities in the GNU Project were on behalf of RMS.

> > > This whole discussion, again, at least to me, boils down to two
> > > things, actually three:
> >
> > It can also boil down about whether people want their work to form part
> > of the Gnu Project or not!!!
>
> Oh, sure it can. So perhaps we should do something along the lines of what
> Thomas outlined:
>
> - ask the maintainers what they want to do
> - then do that
>

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 10:16 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen via Gcc" 
> To: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> Huge apologies for mis-sending this to gcc-patches,
> my email client makes suggestions when I attempt
> to send to a gcc list. :D
>
> The actual suggestion is at the end; skip straight to it if you wish.
>
> >Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you express
> exactly what a lot of people see - even if a minority of people chose to
> ignore it,
>
> >To a lot of "non americans", the events on here appear as nothing more than
> a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position and
> american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who dares
> question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and
> want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy),
> brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad
> there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are stepping
> on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said
> clique can communicate on technical matters).
>
> That's a) incorrect b) beside some rather important points.
>
> The "small minority of developers" you speak of sure
> seems to consist of developers who are not in the minority
> considering how much they _actually contribute_ to the project.

Due to their being paid for the work.  Have no doubt that if others
were being paid, the contributions could likely drown the current
contributors.  Thus, the claim of a power grab is valid.

> Some of them don't need to perform a "power grab"; they
> already have all the power fathomable, by virtue of being maintainers
> and active developers.
>
> This whole discussion, again, at least to me, boils down to two
> things, actually three:

It can also boil down about whether people want their work to form part
of the Gnu Project or not!!!

> 1) is the technical leadership of RMS/GNU/FSF useful for
> the project? Is it beneficial, or harmful?
>
> 2) is the PR/public-face position of RMS/FSF useful for
> the project? Is it beneficial, or harmful?
>
> 3) Who should make decisions related to that? The developers
> and maintainers, or people who are neither of those, but
> are certainly vocal in these discussions?
>
> On the first part, other people have touched on it already,
> but the fear of a dreaded non-free software vendor co-opting
> GCC as a library to a non-free project has resulted in GCC
> being unsuitable to be used as a library in free software
> projects. This approach alone made sure that the meteoric
> rise of LLVM happened; there are recorded statements
> from LLVM developers trying to talk about this to RMS,
> and the answer, as they phrased it, "wasn't useful", because
> RMS decided that GCC shouldn't be a library to make it
> harder to use it in conjunction with non-free programs.
>
> Congratulations, it remains hard to use in conjunction
> with free programs, and everybody who wants to do something
> like that looks at LLVM first. RMS made a lofty attempt to
> promote copyleft software for such purposes, and failed
> miserably, leading us into a situation where such problems
> are not solved with copyleft software, but with LLVM instead.
>
> On the second part, we can discuss whether the reasons
> for various people not wanting RMS/FSF to be the PR department
> of GCC developers are sound, or whether we agree with them,
> until the cows come home.
>
> But that doesn't matter. Bad PR is bad PR, and it seems strikingly
> simple to consider trying a PR department that doesn't have
> the baggage of the previous one.
>
> And if you ask me, *that* should be a choice of the developers
> and maintainers, and them alone. It's their work; they should
> have a say in who and what the public face of the work is
> to the outside world. Whether their choice is made because
> they live a pampered and cosseted life is very much secondary.
>
> I don't have to agree with every viewpoint of the people who
> have suggested that RMS shouldn't lead this project, or that
> this project shouldn't necessarily be tied to FSF any more.
> I don't even need to "accept" it. I don't consider it something
> that needs my approval or acceptance, I'm not a maintainer
> or a major contributor.
>
> However, I consider it something that needs even LESS
> acceptance or approval of ESR or Mr. Dimech or various
> other people. I happen to have Write-After-Approval permission
> for this project. They don't. Because they're not members
> of this project, they don't contribute code to it.
>
> Finally, with regards to there existing a power grab or a sinister
> corporation plot to take GCC away from being "accountable
> to its community":
>
> 1) that's just pure horseshit. The people wanting to disassociate
> the project from RMS and/or FSF worked on GCC before
> their current employment, and will work on GCC after their
> c

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM
> From: "Joseph Myers" 
> To: "Frosku" 
> Cc: e...@thyrsus.com, "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC 
> Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
>
> I think the oversight of glibc by development working through discussion
> seeking consensus, and rejecting any attempt to override such consensus
> "from above", is much more effective than any attempt GNU or FSF makes at
> oversight.  An umbrella organization for the toolchain should not act as
> an "above" that can override the community at all; it should provide
> services to the toolchain (e.g. legal support) as needed.

It should act as an umbrella organization for distributing useful code
under robust legal theory during the production of software in commons.

That's my position, anyway.

> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:52 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "Frosku" , "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear.  When people
> > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> > and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
> > it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> > enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
>
> Actually, some of us did *exactly* those things late in the last century.

When I worked in ocean acoustics, everything was kept secret.  Yet russian
oceanographers (e.g. Leonid Brekhovshkikh who was working in the Sea Japan)
had themselves figured out the same phenomena independently at around the
same time.

> One of the challenges I faced in my early famous years was persuading
> the hacker culture as a whole to treat the profit-centered parts of the
> economy as allies rather than enemies.
>
> I won't say that a *majority* of us were resistent to this, but I
> did have to work hard on the problem for a while, between 1997
> and about 2003.

About ten years ago, free software was chosen as the operating system of
the International Space Station.  Things have been changing, but I agree
that there is much work to be done.  Our approach has been a noticeable
proposition, not just to us - though we understand why it is socially and
politically desirable that the world works this way.

> --
>   http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
>
>
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

I fully agree with your assessment.

Have in the past organised meetings for him and never seen any bs.
Having led the discussions, RMS was always cooperative and at no point
disrupted procedure.  This was 2017-2018 when I was in Barcelona coordinating
all this - leading to the CaixaForum conversation on digital cities with
Barcelona City Council Chief of Technology Francesca Bria.  And other
interactions, e.g. with Behavioral Expert Dr Diane Hamilton.  If anyone
thinks the two women needed white-knighting, people who think this way,
should go and get their head tested.  Although the 14th century is long past,
many educated people today are either uneducated, or education has educated
them out of it.


-
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" 
> To: "David Malcolm" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" , "Joseph Myers" 
> 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> David Malcolm :
> > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from
> > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled".
> >
> > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately
> > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior.
>
> My intent was not caricature.  I was being dismissive and snarky
> because I genuinely consider the personality complaints against RMS to
> be pretty trivial.  Not the managerial ones Joseph Myers listed; those
> are serious.  But they're not the cause of the current ruckus.
>
> To make the "triviality" point in the most forceful possible way, I
> will take the bull by the horns and directly address RMS's behavior towards
> women.  And I will reveal a few things that I haven't talked about in
> public for 40 years.
>
> I've known RMS since 1979; I'm fully aware of how obnoxious he can be
> towards both men and women. There have been occasions on which I have
> thought the state of the universe would have been improved if he'd
> gotten a swift slap in the face.
>
> In fact, the first or second time I met him face to face it was
> because he was rather determinedly pursuing my then-girlfriend.
> A hostile witness might have said he was creeping on her, though
> that slang for it wouldn't be invented until much later.
>
> I think an explanation of how how I reasoned about that situation has
> some value in light of the current attempt to ostracize RMS.
>
> I paid very careful attention to whether my girlfriend appeared to
> need any help dealing with him. I regarded her as an adult fully
> capable of making her own decisions.  One of those decisions could
> have been to slap his face.  If a more severe sanction had been
> required, and she had yelled for help, I would cheerfully have
> punched his lights out.
>
> No fisticuffs were required.  She gently discouraged him, and we both
> established friendly relations with him.  In later years RMS and I
> remained fairly close long after I broke up with that girlfriend.  He
> made passes at at least two of my later girlfriends that I know of,
> including the woman I am still married to.  In all cases, I trusted
> these ladies to handle the situation like adults, and they did.  It
> really would not have occurred to me to do otherwise.
>
> I hear a lot of talk about RMS's behavior towards women being some sort
> of vast horrible transgression that will drive all women everywhere to
> flee from ever being contributors to FSF projects.  To me this seems
> just silly, and very infantilizing of women in general.  My
> girlfriends were emtirely able to
>
> (1) short-stop his advances when they became unwelcome
>
> (2) understand that some men have poor social skills and
> trouble recognizing boundaries,
>
> (3) and *stay on friendly terms with him anyway*.
>
> I mean I saw this not just more than once, but every single time it
> came up.
>
> I don't assume that any adult female is incapable of these things; I
> respect women as fully capable of asserting and defending their
> interests, I *expect* women to do that, and I thus consider a lot of the
> white-knighting on their behalf to be at best empty virtue signaling
> and at worst a cover for much more discreditable motives.
>
> Of course, he offends men too.  When I deal with RMS, I know that I'm
> going to have to cope with a certain amount of unpleasantness because
> he has autism-like deficits amplified by some unfortunate personal
> history.  Yes.  So what?  He's one of my oldest friends anyway.  He
> has many admirable qualities; I respect and value him even when I have
> to argue with him.  And I can work with him when I need to.
>
> Why in the *hell* should I assume anyone with female genitalia is
> incapable of doing the same?  More

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:11 AM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > > behalf of my company I swear".
> > >
> > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then?
> >
> > For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people
> > who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to
> > do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets
> > work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most
> > of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of
> > companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the
> > general rule.
> >
> > Ian
>
> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
> the free software grassroots community, this is not a win-win. This is
> powerful US corporations removing something our community created from
> our community's oversight and moving it into a space where it's governed
> by representatives of Silicon Valley rather than a membership-based non
> profit.
>
> Whilst everyone's contributions to the software should be welcomed, I
> don't think you'll find many FSF members celebrating the impact of paid
> Corporate engineers on GCC if this sorry state of affairs comes to be.

The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear.  When people
at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.


> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:51 AM
> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc" 
> To: chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc  wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > behalf of my company I swear".
> >
> > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then?
>
> For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people
> who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to
> do serious work on GCC.  After all, it's a win-win: the company gets
> work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid.  The effect is that most
> of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of
> companies.  There are of course many exceptions, but that is the
> general rule.
>
> Ian

Such contributions are valued, and companies where talent is allowed to flow
towards the public is commendable, even for those with a history of 
exploitation.
Many of us pay their taxes, not because we see crowds of people sent to jail.
But because spontaneous compliance is the way for things to work.  That's what
I hope for.

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> >> ===
> >>
> >> So .. in summary:
> >>
> >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving
> >> in a
> >> non-constructive manner can be pointed.
> >>
> >> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is
> >> unable to
> >> follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in 
> >> matters
> >> such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no 
> >> differently from
> >> any other spam.
> >
> > Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the  
> > fact
> > that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas  
> > by making
> > “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather  
> > than sterile
> > sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual,  
> > the particular,
> > or the discrete.
> 
> However, that isn’t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite; that  
> history shows
> that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructively  
> *without*
> recourse to written guidelines.
> 
> It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but,  
> rather, the exceptional.

There have been many discussions emanating from Nathan's messages, that 
toxity is endemic.  I disagree with that in practice as you do.
 
But there are some discussions that potentially lead to the opposite.
I feel that when the issues at hand produce a series of contrasting
views that are significant. taking a guideline approach could result

   

> >  Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply associated 
> > with RMS, FSF and GNU.
> 
> My mail contains no reference to any of these, but simply to identifying  
> processes
> that have failed to work in discussions (about those topics, granted).

No, your message did not reference that.  But was a general assessment of what
I have seen developing.  Indeed, the discussion started with the same
person suggesting "white male privilege", the source of all toxicity coming
from one individual and those associated with him, etc.
 
> > Human beings have the capacity to be wise and develop their thoughts on  
> > wise
> > decision-making skills that evolve from a combination of experience,  
> > empathy,
> > and intellect.  Many times, this means having the capacity to break those
> > guidelines and rules.
> 
> “rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”?
> 
> As noted above, 99.99% (guessed of course) of the list traffic is carried  
> out in
> the guise you mention, and probably would continue to be so…
> 
> … the proposal is to have a mechanism to deal with the exceptional.

That depends on the arguments of the discussion.  It is acceptable at times
to respond roughly to some kinds of discursive treatment.  Although Nathan
was allowed to write, he was surely aware of the implications - that a 
schism was likely.
 
> > In the World Trade Center Disaster, many people who were used  to following
> > the rules died because they did what they were told by authority figures.
> > I know about these things as part of my industrial work experience.
> 
> Probably almost no-one “here” would be able to substantiate or deny this -  
> am I to
> take it that it is a serious data point suggesting that absence of control  
> is a better
> process?

There have been numerous historical instances - let's say in the journalistic
realm where I do operate - when that was true.

Still, I am not against moderation when required in principle.  Indeed, it 
is part of the job as maintainer (and co-maintainers, etc.) to exercise 
authority on these points when they arise.  Personally, I am not afraid to
exercise them when associated with my own work.  

Customarily, I would not oppose to intervention, except on special instances
when the assessments was faulty - I specifically mention Gnu Health and the
arguments Dr. Luis Falcon had with Savannah regarding package admin.  May I
remind everybody that Argentina opted for GNU Health for COVID19 observatory
and contact tracing.  At the time, I was also doing my own work on COVID19
and considered my intervention necessary.

> There is no counter experiment to determine the outcome in the case that  
> there
> were no authority figures and no rules (nor would anyone wish to conduct  
> such an
> experiment).
> 
> To me this is spurious input, I cannot see how it could be used to make any  
> guidance
> to the progress here.
> 
> Iain
> 
> >
> >>* although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement 
> >> here is that
> >>the net benefit of such input is negative.
> >>
> >> 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about  
> >> music)
> >> to
> >>which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and 
> >> Religion are better
> >>discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a 
> >> technical decision
> >>on the progress of 

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe" 
> To: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Paul Koning  wrote:
> >> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe  wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> responding in general to this part of the thread.
> >>
> >> * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
> >> years I’ve been part of the community.
> 
> >> * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the  
> >> wool
> >> can be so easily pulled over our eyes.
> >>
> 
> >> responding to the thread in general..
> >>
> >> * Please could we try to seek consensus?
> >>
> >> - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of  
> >> point-scoring game
> >> when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for.
> 
> Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that  
> have
> arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal
> 
> * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project
>process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list
> 
>- but that does not  solve the problem(s) it just moves them.
>- (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an 
> automatic filter
>   for these topics or have no interest in them).
> 
> * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and  
> gcc-patches@ lists
> 
>- primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and 
> patch review
>  respectively.
> 
>- we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help 
> list (while
> often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel.
> 
>- I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the 
> technical
>  issues (reasonably) calmly.
> 
>- to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any 
> basis than
> technical content.
> 
> * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project  
> process, this
>list is a reasonable choice.
> 
> ———
> 
> The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief  
> that most of
> the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a  
> constructive
> environment, lead to the following proposition:
> 
>* that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional 
> management,
>  (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that 
> this community
>  by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation.
> 
>   * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from 
> people who
> have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault 
> of their own).
> 
>   * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer 
> or
> intentionally acting in a destructive manner.
> 
> - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such 
> as a
>  compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines.
> 
> - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who 
> is being
> disruptive can be pointed.
> 
>* (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the 
> list, for which
>  I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect 
> that genuine
>  contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow 
> guidelines - and
> that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any 
> different from a
>  spammer.
>  
> Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would  
> be much
> different from the obvious for this group).
> 
>   is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a 
> few key
>   things:
> 
>- attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the 
> message
>- introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate
>- trying to equate the process of this project with party or international 
> Politics.
> 
> ===
> 
> So .. in summary:
> 
> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving  
> in a
>  non-constructive manner can be pointed.
> 
> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is  
> unable to
>  follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in 
> matters
>  such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no 
> differently from
>  any other spam.

Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the fact
that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas by 
making
“right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather than 
sterile
sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual, the 
particular,
or the discrete.  Thusl

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:31 AM
> From: "David Malcolm via Gcc" 
> To: e...@thyrsus.com, "Joseph Myers" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 09:49 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Joseph Myers :
> > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or
> > > > another. I am simply pointing out that there is a Schelling point
> > > > in
> > > > possible community norms that is well expressed as "you shall judge
> > > > by
> > > > the code alone".  This list is not full of contention from
> > > > affirming
> > > > that norm, but from some peoples' attempt to repudiate it.
> > > 
> > > Since RMS, FSF and GNU are not contributing code to the toolchain and
> > > haven't been for a very long time, the most similar basis to judge
> > > them 
> > > would seem to be based on their interactions with toolchain
> > > development.  
> > > I think those interactions generally show that FSF and GNU have been
> > > bad 
> > > umbrella organizations for the toolchain since at least when the GCC
> > > 4.4 
> > > release was delayed waiting for a slow process of developing the GCC 
> > > Runtime Library Exception.
> > 
> > I do not have standing to argue this point.
> > 
> > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from
> > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled".
> 
> [I'm sorry to everyone who's sick of these threads, but I feel I have
> to respond to this one; sorry about writing another long email]
> 
> Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately
> trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior.
> 
> I think the words "canceled" and "cancel culture" have effectively
> become meaningless and should be avoided if we want to have a nuanced
> discussion - no-one seems to have a definition of what counts as
> "canceling" vs "consequences" vs "fair and measured responses".
> 
> At one time, both you and RMS were heroes of mine, and I was a true
> believer (of what, I'm no longer sure); I own copies of both "The
> Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "Free Software - Free Society", though
> both are currently in my attic, gathering dust.
> 
> I've long felt that there was a massive hole in the GNU project and FSF
> where effective technical leadership should have been - various
> maintainers on gcc, gdb, etc have been implementing things, and things
> were humming along, and those of us in Red Hat working on them tried to
> coordinate on features we felt were important - but where was the top-
> level response to, say, LLVM/clang? (to name just one of many changes
> in the industry)  In many ways the last 8 years of my career have been
> an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang (I've
> added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing a
> static analysis pass)

I don't see a problem with improvements in appearance when valuable and
useful.  It is not easy to work with as it could be.  One can also complain
about what's missing in LLVM.  I am however not a proponent of C++, and closely
relate to Eric's comment about the unfortunate decline of C.  Have worked
on C++ myself in the oil, gas and mining industry, and in other things like
underwater acoustics.  Where the difficulties of working with object oriented
programming made working with some kinds of algorithms impossible to track
adequately. 

> - I'm lucky that my managers inside Red Hat are
> happy to pay me to hack on this stuff and make GCC better - it helps
> our customers, but it also helps GCC, and the broader FLOSS communities
> using both toolchains).
> 
> Where has the technical leadership from RMS been?  Instead the long-
> standing opposition by RMS to exposing the compiler's IR has hobbled
> GCC, and partly contributed to the pile of technical debt we have to
> dig our way out of.  The only "leadership" coming out of GNU/FSF seem
> to me to be dictats from on high about ChangeLog formats and coding
> conventions.  The GNU project seems to me to be stuck in the 1980s. 
> Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be consumable as
> libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have
> helped (and still could; can we do that please?)
> 
> Similarly, I agree with Joseph's observations of the ways that the FSF
> and GNU have been bad umbrella organizations for the toolchain.
> 
> But beyond the failure of technical leadership, and the organizational
> incompetence/incoherence, is RMS's behavior, and the extent to which
> it, as you put it "upset some people".
> 
> RMS's defenders seem to have fixated on his 2019 comments on Marvin
> Minsky, the uproar over those, and his responses to them (then and
> recently), and seem keen to assure us that everything's OK now, or, at
> least on a road to improvement.

I have seen much discussion and arguments emanating from that.  Includin

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Richard Biener via Gcc" 
> To: "Jason Merrill" 
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig" , "gcc mailing list" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On April 15, 2021 6:02:50 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill  
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:08 AM Richard Biener via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >> >N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
> >> >On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig 
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
> >> >>happen, I can guarantee you that.
> >> >
> >> >This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
> >> >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But
> >I'm
> >> >not going to press for reasons.
> >>
> >> Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't
> >FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org
> >DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name.
> >
> >It seems wrong to call such a scenario a fork.  If someone wanted to
> >fork GCC they are free to do so, but changing the relationship with
> >GNU/FSF is not a fork, as there would continue to be one primary
> >source repository.

Correct, but whatever happens, the association with RMS will remain.
Thusly the impasse is not going away.  A fork would work, but then
the secessionists' intention is to carry on with the Gcc tag, because
of its respected position in the world of science and technology.


> True. That's definitely better communication.
>
> Richard.
>
> >Jason
>
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 10:20 PM
> From: "Aaron Gyes" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: dim...@gmx.com
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 5:10 PM, Christopher Dimech  wrote:
> 
> > What are we?  Adults or Children?  You know, as I know, that identities
> > can be made up.  There are many computing specialists who can do that.
> > They can even be made so it looks as though they were sent by you, or 
> > from your work and home address.  They could even be made up to look as
> > though your children sent them.
> 
> That’s far out man, like outer space far out. It’s fortunate, though, that
> despite this confusing world of tricksters you find yourself in, you have
> maintained the kind of confidence and composure required to put in thisn 
> insincere
> kind of low-effort trolling to defend your principals, in a serious discussion
> that were it to go the wrong way, could well potentially also require you to 
> take
> responsibility for your behavior in public. 

I can easily write articles in the international press and take interviews.
 
> > So my point here — if it’s okay just to have a point when people should 
> > already be drinking and dancing — my point is let’s not get confused. 
> 
> 
> Do you imagine people may one day solemnly read through these archives here, 
> shaking
> their heads at how Mr. Stallman was treated, how mean and irrational it all 
> was, even as
> even you tried your best to outwit the members into doing the right thing… 
> Just as people do
> when reading Socrates' Apology, or Tacitus talking about the suffering under 
> emperors?
> 
> That would be sad because the annals of the mailing list will be available 
> verbatim, probably
> Literally forever, so obviously that can’t happen.

Do you plan to start quoting me?  Thank you.

> Aaron

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 9:18 PM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "Nathan Sidwell" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 02:18, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > What are we?  Adults or Children?  You know, as I know, that identities
> > can be made up.  There are many computing specialists who can do that.
> > They can even be made so it looks as though they were sent by you, or
> > from your work and home address.  They could even be made up to look as
> > though your children sent them.
> >
> > I remember a closing comment by Eben Moglen during a full-day program at
> > Columbia Law School in 2016.  And I agree with him.
> >
> > So my point here — if it’s okay just to have a point when people should 
> > already be drinking and dancing — my point is let’s not get confused. This 
> > is not war time. This is diplomacy time. Skill counts. Agility counts. 
> > Discretion counts. Long credibility counts. Ammunition? Ammunition is 
> > worthless because wherever we fire it, we work everywhere and it’s only 
> > going to hit us. - Eben Moglen
> 
> Interesting choice of quote from the guy who made the very first reply
> to the whole thing with "What is this?  The usual rant of freaked out
> madness!!!"
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235092.html

Yes, I am that individual who was quoted saying that on the international
press.  Don't you have something bad to say about Eben Moglen too.  
He is proud of what anarchism achieved, a path that is certainly at odds
with Nathan's arguments.  
 
> and followed soon after with "More rats for the wood pile. "
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235109.html

Correct.  He brought it upon himself.
 
> But now you're lecturing us about diplomacy.

Something you and Nathan are incapable of.  

I'd just like to eject the jerks... And yes, I fully realize there are
other ways I can choose to not associate with them here. - Nathan


> Fuck off, Christopher. Just fuck off. You've added nothing of value to
> this entire discussion, just riled people up and stirred up trouble.
> Fuck off.

That is a dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell" 
> To: "Martin Jambor" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> >> other toxic emails?  do we have a code of conduct?  Searching the wiki
> >> or website finds nothing.  The mission statement mentions nothing.
> > 
> > I think that (most?) people have already figured out that messages from
> > unfamiliar senders on certain topics have to be ignored.  It is much
> > easier than any moderation, which would be ugly work (someone would have
> > to read the often horrible stuff).
> > 
> > I think that you only "associate" with trolls if you feed them.  I have
> > recently made that mistake on this list once and will not repeat it.
> 
> I disagree.  Their emails pollute the list.  Just as I wouldn't like to 
> go to a bar where there are noisy jerks in a corner, I don't like to 
> frequent an ML where there are.  Bouncers exist in physical space, is it 
> so hard to electronically bounce jerks?  Is it so hard to explicitly say 
> 'be a jerk and be thrown out'?
> 
> Their presence makes the place unwelcoming.
> 
> - nathan - > Nathan Sidwell

What are we?  Adults or Children?  You know, as I know, that identities
can be made up.  There are many computing specialists who can do that.
They can even be made so it looks as though they were sent by you, or 
from your work and home address.  They could even be made up to look as
though your children sent them.

I remember a closing comment by Eben Moglen during a full-day program at
Columbia Law School in 2016.  And I agree with him.

So my point here — if it’s okay just to have a point when people should already 
be drinking and dancing — my point is let’s not get confused. This is not war 
time. This is diplomacy time. Skill counts. Agility counts. Discretion counts. 
Long credibility counts. Ammunition? Ammunition is worthless because wherever 
we fire it, we work everywhere and it’s only going to hit us. - Eben Moglen

Christopher

 

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:32 AM
> From: "Paul Koning via Gcc" 
> To: "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Nathan Sidwell  wrote:
> >
> > On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> Hi Nathan,
> >> On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >>> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> >>> other toxic emails?  do we have a code of conduct?  Searching the wiki
> >>> or website finds nothing.  The mission statement mentions nothing.
> >> I think that (most?) people have already figured out that messages from
> >> unfamiliar senders on certain topics have to be ignored.  It is much
> >> easier than any moderation, which would be ugly work (someone would have
> >> to read the often horrible stuff).
> >> I think that you only "associate" with trolls if you feed them.  I have
> >> recently made that mistake on this list once and will not repeat it.
> >
> > I disagree.  Their emails pollute the list.  Just as I wouldn't like to go 
> > to a bar where there are noisy jerks in a corner, I don't like to frequent 
> > an ML where there are.  Bouncers exist in physical space, is it so hard to 
> > electronically bounce jerks?  Is it so hard to explicitly say 'be a jerk 
> > and be thrown out'?
>
> Who decides?
>
> Bouncers enforce the policy of the owner of the joint.  In any meetingplace 
> that has an owner who has authority over who enters, it's possible to 
> establish rules controlling ejection and bouncers to do the ejecting.
>
> Our place does not have a single owner who has the authority to decide 
> unilaterally "you're not wanted, leave".  What mechanism would you use 
> instead?  Ostracism, in the classic Greek sense of a secret ballot to decide 
> for or against banishment?
- paul

We can reintroduce the duel.  It was originally reserved for the male members
of the nobility in the late 18th century in England using pistols.  What do
you think of that? :)

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:27 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers" 
> To: "Eric S. Raymond" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or
> > another. I am simply pointing out that there is a Schelling point in
> > possible community norms that is well expressed as "you shall judge by
> > the code alone".  This list is not full of contention from affirming
> > that norm, but from some peoples' attempt to repudiate it.
>
> Since RMS, FSF and GNU are not contributing code to the toolchain and
> haven't been for a very long time, the most similar basis to judge them
> would seem to be based on their interactions with toolchain development.
> I think those interactions generally show that FSF and GNU have been bad
> umbrella organizations for the toolchain since at least when the GCC 4.4
> release was delayed waiting for a slow process of developing the GCC
> Runtime Library Exception.
>
> Things have gone most smoothly when no actions or decisions from FSF or
> GNU have been required and when RMS has not attempted to make any
> decisions related to the toolchain.  When RMS has attempted to make any
> decisions, or suggest features, etc., that's generally served to waste a
> lot of time explaining to him why his ideas are irrelevant or based on a
> fundamental lack of understanding of the issues involved.  Even when he's
> made suggestions that are reasonable, he's still wasted a lot of people's
> time arguing about points that should not be controversial.
>
> (By way of example, on 20 Sep 2017 he suggested to the SC that GCC should
> support direct use of non-ASCII characters in identifiers.  I replied
> pointing him to the guidance I'd given in bug 67224 comments 11, 19 and
> 21.  So far, that's reasonable, but he then entered into prolonged
> discussion of the details of what particular patches did or didn't do,
> exactly what characters should or should not be allowed in identifiers,
> how GNU relates to standards, to what extent we need to design a feature
> properly before including it in GCC, and so on.  None of his comments
> there were at all useful, since he's far too far removed from current GCC
> development to comment usefully on such matters, and any useful comments
> in that area would have been better somewhere public anyway.  And in due
> course we did get a new GCC contributor who successfully implemented the
> feature in GCC following the guidance I'd given, despite RMS's notions
> that that would be too hard.)
>
> In things where the FSF and GNU have been supposed to be acting as
> umbrella organizations, that has generally been done badly (e.g. there
> have been problems with long delays in processing copyright assignments
> many times over the years; they never managed to come up with a simple
> GPL/GFDL dual-licensing notice so requiring instead the cumbersome system
> of having both GPL and GFDL copies of certain text in target.def and
> tm.texi).

Have suggested the need to work on the GFDL to make it compatible with
GPL-like licenses.

> For fairness, I should note the *unique case I know of in the past decade*
> where RMS was involved in a positive toolchain contribution.  On 11 Nov
> 2011 he started a discussion with me regarding the problems with glibc
> maintenance, and that ultimately started the transition to more
> community-oriented glibc development.  But ultimately the key parts of
> that transition were not the parts that actually involved RMS - it was
> discussions with Roland McGrath, not with RMS, that were key to achieving
> the transition successfully.
>
> New GNU maintainers of glibc, as recommended by me, were added on RMS's
> direction (maintainers revision 1.1352 on fencepost, 10 Feb 2012).  But
> the actual problems before then with glibc development weren't with the
> GNU maintainers (steering committee), beyond that they didn't do anything
> much to address the dysfunction in glibc development - it wasn't the GNU
> maintainers who were pushing away contributions.  And it was the
> deliberate work on building a community, getting people contributing,
> getting contributions committed (bootstrapping off Roland's authority to
> approve changes regardless of whether the then lead developer cared for
> them) that was actually the key part.  The announcements relating to
> changes
> 
>  were
> primarily concerned with a situation that already existed at that time,
> and that had been achieved by following a process that Roland had
> convinced me would be the right way to achieve changes, not with
> announcing anything done on the authority of RMS (which had happened over
> a month earlier without any public announcement).
>
> So in that case, while RMS started the discussion (or at least

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell" 
> To: "Martin Jambor" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> >> other toxic emails?  do we have a code of conduct?  Searching the wiki
> >> or website finds nothing.  The mission statement mentions nothing.
> >
> > I think that (most?) people have already figured out that messages from
> > unfamiliar senders on certain topics have to be ignored.  It is much
> > easier than any moderation, which would be ugly work (someone would have
> > to read the often horrible stuff).
> >
> > I think that you only "associate" with trolls if you feed them.  I have
> > recently made that mistake on this list once and will not repeat it.
>
> I disagree.  Their emails pollute the list.  Just as I wouldn't like to
> go to a bar where there are noisy jerks in a corner, I don't like to
> frequent an ML where there are.  Bouncers exist in physical space, is it
> so hard to electronically bounce jerks?  Is it so hard to explicitly say
> 'be a jerk and be thrown out'?
>
> Their presence makes the place unwelcoming.
> - nathan - Nathan Sidwell

I agree, but the question is - Who will decide?

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:09 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "Thomas Koenig" 
> 
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> 
> On 4/14/2021 8:49 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >>> A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> >>> out of bounds here is also helpful.
> >> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> >> fork from the start.
> > No, because once again, I raised the topic of a fork because I do not
> > feel that association with GNU or FSF benefits the GCC project. I did
> > not say "we have to cancel them because I don't like their politics"
> > (as it happens, I do like their politics, which is why I've spent two
> > decades writing copyleft code for GCC, I just think they have failed
> > to evolve and are sadly irrelevant today).
> 
> [ Speaking for myself, not the steering committee or my employer... ]
> 
> 
> Well said (and I'm not being sarcastic).  While my politics may not line 
> up 100% with those of the FSF, GNU project or RMS, they have been close 
> enough for me to spend 30+ years of my life working on GNU tools.  I 
> agree with you Jon that the organizations and RMS personally have failed 
> to evolve - Jeff
 
I have been involved in discussions arising from a failure to evolve, I can't
deny it.  Eventually things get rectified, but there is a problem of things
taking too long.  On the other hand forcing people hard won't work.  So I do
live with quite some inconveniences.

Still, I find that things bended in the right way decade-by-decade.  
Day-by-Day - things oscillate.  

Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:42 AM
> From: "Jeff Law" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Toon Moene" 
> Cc: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely" 
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas 
> Koenig" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 
> On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> >> From: "Toon Moene" 
> >> To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener" 
> >> , "Jonathan Wakely" , 
> >> "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig" 
> >> 
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>  On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
>   wrote:
> > N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig 
> > wrote:
> >> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
> >>      happen, I can guarantee you that.
> > This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
>  >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But I'm
> > not going to press for reasons.
>  Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't
>  FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org
>  DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name.
> >>> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches
> >>> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function
> >>> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare
> >>> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more
> >>> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.
> >> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters
> >> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was
> >> completely unclear to me where it would end.
> >>
> >> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization,
> >> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.
> >>
> >> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been
> >> disappointed.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> >> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
> > The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be
> > inefficient and unwieldy.   As long as the license terms for free software
> > are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased.
> 
> Umm, no.  The projects re-united because the FSF fork wasn't viable and 
> we structured EGCS so that if it was successful it could supplant the 
> FSF fork.  Toon, myself and others were part of that process.

Would you consider the current situation as separate still?  It seems that
some coordination is needed, irrespective of disagreement, if there is to
be a future in all this.

Had asked Thomas Koenig for details which I could follow very clearly.
He talked sense to me. 
 
> jeff
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc" 
> To: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely" 
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas 
> Koenig" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 
> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc 
> >  wrote:
> >> N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig 
> >> wrote:
> >>> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
> >>> happen, I can guarantee you that.
> >> This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
> > >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But I'm
> >> not going to press for reasons.

> > Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't FSF 
> > controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org DNS and 
> > thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name.

It is likely that gcc.gnu.org would not be available.

> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.

> Given there would be actual work involved on the FSF side to keep a "fork" 
> with the exact same setup (and thus transparent with existing setups) I don't 
> see it keeping live (but I see somebody populating savannah with sources).
> 
> Absolutely.  I could even see a small community continuing to push the 
> FSF fork for a while until it becomes abundantly clear that only one 
> fork is long term viable.  That's what happened with EGCS -- the 
> majority of the developer community went with the EGCS fork with a small 
> community staying on the FSF fork.  Eventually it became clear that EGCS 
> had much broader developer support and the FSF fork ultimately withered 
> away.

The issue would then be of compatibility.  Free Software is that which, by
definition, may be forked from the original development team without prior
permission, without violating copyright law.  Gcc would continue as a Gnu 
Project nonetheless.  Technically, gcc is not a fork.   
 
> Jeff
> 
> 
>

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

There are many things one can say, but when Richard Stallman talks
about computing, he talks sense.  I categorise him with Mathematician
Paul Erdos.  Furthermore, when I had disagreements with him, I never
got ousted.

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 1:18 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" 
> To: "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Nathan Sidwell :
> > Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> > other toxic emails?  do we have a code of conduct?  Searching the wiki or
> > website finds nothing.  The mission statement mentions nothing.
>
> I'm not a GCC insider, but I know a few things about the social
> dynamics of voluntarist subcultures. You might recall I wrote a book
> about that once.
>
> The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.  Another,
> particularly serious for hackers - is that such a policy is hostile to
> autists and others who have poor interaction skills but can ship good
> code.  This is a significant percentage of your current and future
> potential contributors, enough that excluding them is a real problem.
>
> Most seriously: the rules, whatever they are, will be gamed by people
> whose objectives are not "ship useful software". You will be fortunate
> if the gamers' objectives are as relatively innocuous as "gain points
> in monkey status competition by beating up funny-colored monkeys";
> there are much worse cases that have been known to crash even projects
> with nearly as much history and social inertia as this one.
>
> Compared to these costs, the overhead of tolerating a few jerks and
> assholes is pretty much trivial.  That's hard to see right now because
> the jerks are visible and the costs of formal policing are
> hypothetical, but I strongly advise you against going down the Code of
> Conduct route regardless of how fashionable that looks right now.  I
> have forty years of observer-participant anthropology in intentional
> online communities, beginning with the disintegration of the USENET
> cabal back in the 1980s, telling me that will not end well.

All of this needs transformation, that can be agreed.  What you have said
makes sense - the fundamental purpose is to enhance our knowing and our
computing capability.

> You're better off with an informal system of moderator fiat and
> *without* rules that beg to become a subject of dispute and
> manipulation. A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> You face a choice between being a community that is about shipping code
> and one that is embroiled in perpetual controversy over who gets to
> play here and on what terms.  Choose wisely.

There has been an unfortunate history of discrimination at all levels.
Yet, many are simply talking activism originating from rudimentary ideas,
many picked up from the west.  People are mixing things.  There is
exploitation, but not necessarily discrimination.  Exploitation is not
just of the woman.  Anybody who is weaker than you, people are
exploiting - whether it's a man, woman and child.

Should one take Nathan's approach, it would be equally valid to state
that Nathan and some of his associates are in no position to give lessons,
considering the hidden history of exploitation perpetrated by their
employers.  Assisting a company that unleashes exploitative practices,
for income, is equally reprehensible.  Correct me if I am wrong.

> --

>   http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
>
>
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> From: "Toon Moene" 
> To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener" 
> , "Jonathan Wakely" , 
> "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> 
> >> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc 
> >>  wrote:
> 
> >>> N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
> 
> >>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  - All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
>      happen, I can guarantee you that.
> 
> >>> This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
> >> >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But I'm
> >>> not going to press for reasons.
> 
> >> Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't 
> >> FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org 
> >> DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name.
> 
> > I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
> > critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
> > of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
> > scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
> > concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.
> 
> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters 
> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was 
> completely unclear to me where it would end.
> 
> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization, 
> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.
> 
> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been 
> disappointed.
> 
> -- 
> Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be
inefficient and unwieldy.   As long as the license terms for free software
are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased. 

Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:08 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell" 
> To: e...@thyrsus.com
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" 
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Nathan Sidwell :
> >> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> >> other toxic emails?  do we have a code of conduct?  Searching the wiki or
> >> website finds nothing.  The mission statement mentions nothing.
> >
> > I'm not a GCC insider, but I know a few things about the social
> > dynamics of voluntarist subcultures. You might recall I wrote a book
> > about that once.
> >
> > The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> > One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> > burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.  Another,
> > particularly serious for hackers - is that such a policy is hostile to
> > autists and others who have poor interaction skills but can ship good
> > code.  This is a significant percentage of your current and future
> > potential contributors, enough that excluding them is a real problem.
> >
> > Most seriously: the rules, whatever they are, will be gamed by people
> > whose objectives are not "ship useful software". You will be fortunate
> > if the gamers' objectives are as relatively innocuous as "gain points
> > in monkey status competition by beating up funny-colored monkeys";
> > there are much worse cases that have been known to crash even projects
> > with nearly as much history and social inertia as this one.
> >
> > Compared to these costs, the overhead of tolerating a few jerks and
> > assholes is pretty much trivial.  That's hard to see right now because
> > the jerks are visible and the costs of formal policing are
> > hypothetical, but I strongly advise you against going down the Code of
> > Conduct route regardless of how fashionable that looks right now.  I
> > have forty years of observer-participant anthropology in intentional
> > online communities, beginning with the disintegration of the USENET
> > cabal back in the 1980s, telling me that will not end well.
> >
> > You're better off with an informal system of moderator fiat and
> > *without* rules that beg to become a subject of dispute and
> > manipulation. A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
> >
> > You face a choice between being a community that is about shipping code
> > and one that is embroiled in perpetual controversy over who gets to
> > play here and on what terms.  Choose wisely.
> >
>
> I'd just like to eject the jerks, because they make the place
> unwelcoming.  I wouldn't associate with them in physical space, I don't
> want to associate with them here.  And yes, I fully realize there are
> other ways I can choose to not associate with them here.
>
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
>

Everybody knew what you wanted to do with that post from the beginning.
Eradication.  Glad you said it.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" 
> Cc: "David Malcolm via Gcc" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons.  What I
> > don't recall seeing is the actual issue.  Pardon me if I missed it; I
> > gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
> > sidestepped it, which tells me I don't really know what it is.  If you
> > could point to it in the archives, or restate it, I'd appreciate it.
> >
>
> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html
>
> GNU seems to have become a cult of personality. FSF seems to be a sinking
> ship.
>
> I don't think it benefits GCC to be linked to them. I think GCC would do
> better without those links.
>
> The mail linked above was quoted in the first mail in this sub-thread, when
> Mark changed the Subject:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235340.html
>
> I also agree with the sentiments in
> https://wingolog.org/archives/2021/03/25/here-we-go-again
>
> I said that the only benefit I see for GCC is the DNS records for
> gcc.gnu.org and apart from Mark suggesting that a single copyright holder
> is an advantage (which I am not convinced about) the only arguments put
> forward have been variations on:
>
> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)
>
> - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be trusted or
> don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true and don't see this
> as an advantage)
>
> - RMS doesn't get involved in GCC anyway, there's no reason to disassociate
> from him (still doesnt tell me what benefit there is, and ignores
> perception problems caused by that association)
>
> - it is not wise to disrespect the GNU Father (rambling troll who is listed
> as a GNU maintainer despite contributing no code, further devaluing the
> whole project)

You devalue him, I value him.  That's all.

I am a Official GNU Maintainer because the work is considered valuable because 
it
does not overlap with existing packages.  Besides needing capable people to help
there are legal reasons behind there being no code yet.  Those will be resolved.

I am recognised in various nations, and because I am in it the whole gnu project
is further valued.

> So no benefits that I can see. But lots of cult-like behaviour that helped
> me make up my mind.
>
> If the GNU project and the FSF want to keep RMS, fine, they can have him
> (if you check you'll find I haven't signed the GitHub letter). But they
> can't tell me to be happy about it and they can't tell me where to
> contribute my code.
>
> If the GNU project wants to pull my code from a fork, without my copyright
> assignment, I will consider that a small victory because it will mean
> they're willing to accept the contributions without owning the copyright.
> I'd like that.
>
> Anybody is welcome to use my code subject to its licence terms. But that
> doesn't mean they're welcome to own it or call it theirs. Assigning my
> copyright is my choice (and w.r.t what you said to Dave about "selling our
> services" ... a cheap shot which assumes we aren't contributing under
> personal assignments to the FSF, and assumes we have no choice to work
> elsewhere if we don't like the terms).
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:04 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" 
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva,  wrote:
>
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
> > veneration.
> >
>
> There have been many posts over the past two weeks suggesting that without
> RMS to guide us, GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that nobody has any
> authority to decide on the future of GNU projects except RMS (a view also
> stated on GNU mailing lists by moderators of those very lists), or other
> silly claims that are based on little but veneration. They're not really
> based on anything about GCC, just "y u no like RMS?"

I have disagreed that GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that the only
person to decide is RMS.

> > I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
> > justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
> > movement.
> >
> > If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over false
> > allegations about a person, on occasion of that person rejoining the
> > board of an organization that was founded and has always supported the
> > project who's still led by that person, that makes the issue personal
> > and based on blind faith, though in the opposite sense of veneration.
> >
>
> Oh I have other reasons to consider the FSF a dead end too.
>
>
> > If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand
> > exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that
> > into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate.
> >
>
> Kind debate. Right.
>
> Maybe somebody from the GNU project or the FSF could tell one of their GNU
> Maintainers (apparently part of the governance structure of the GNU
> project) to stop calling people mad, or rats, or to stop endless off-topic
> trolling about communism. There is no kind debate when every other post is
> an attack from a troll.

Things can be said directly as customary.  You are certainly willing offending
me in your pursuit.  There have been instances where my post followed a number
of posts, but not on the entire thread.

> Your own emails are always carefully considered (and carefully skate around
> the actual issues people raised) but most of the other voices objecting to
> the requests to make changes to GCC are coming from outsiders who are only
> too happy to insult GCC devs and derail any "debate".

I am not an outsider.  Or have a plan to derail any debate or insult every
developer.  But the debate is in the gcc mailing list to which I was not an
outsider.  Changes can be done, and even if I would not agree with some
aspects, will respect the final choice.  There is no prerogative to praise
developers, including myself.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> >Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
> >name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
> >
> > Then it would not longer be GCC.  It would be something different.
> > The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> > GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> > cost of software freedom.  Commercial interessts are often at odds
> > with software freedom as well.  This is one of the many reasons why
> > the GNU project is entierly volunteer based.
> >
>
> It is decades since gcc has been /just/ a free compiler for the GNU
> system.  That is still an important role, of course, but the compiler's
> use has vastly outgrown that area.  The same applies to most of the GNU
> projects.
>
> And while I agree that commercial interests are /sometimes/ at odds with
> free software, they are also essential for it - GNU would never have
> existed without commercial software, and most or all of its projects
> would have languished without commercial interest.

Commercial interests are not at odds, provided some rules are followed

> (Look, for example,
> at the Hurd project - it is absolutely critical to the concept of having
> a complete software system using only free software, but it is of almost
> no commercial interest to anyone.  And thus it has had negligible
> progress.)
>
> Like it or not, money is essential to the way the world works, and
> commercial interests are unavoidable.  You can make them work for you
> while keeping the values and ideals you hold dear (such as by having
> volunteers for development, with contributions and leadership
> appointments being personal, while letting a commercial organisation pay
> your wages).  Commercial interests are generally only a problem if you
> let them be a problem.

As aspirations grow, money is an enabling process.  A tool created to simplify 
transactions.  And things are evolving so that transactions become digital,
where money in the traditional sense does not exist.  The problem is when money
becomes a goal by itself.

To be successful, we need the cooperation of many forces present in our
surroundings, including our employers or people who do business with us.

> > But I'd hope that we can avoid words like "fanaticism", "childish",
> > "cultish" simply because of disagreement in philosophies or continuing
> > to spread obvious misunderstandings of what someone wrote, it is not
> > constructive and only causes unnsesescary agitation.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner" 
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, g...@gnu.org, rodg...@appliantology.com
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> > >
> > > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> > > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
> >
> > If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which
> > seems to me that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic),
> > people would be discouraged to serve on it.
>
> I'm sorry, what is it that you think that the "community" (whatever
> that is) is demanding too much of?

Some have been saying that leaders are representatives of the whole
free software users, and if mistakes happen, they would tarnish everybody.
And then a situation similar to this one starts all over again.

I would say that it is the organisers of events that have such responsibility.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:07 AM
> From: "Frosku" 
> To: "Didier Kryn" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> > > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> > > will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> > > immediately follow. 
> >
> > Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a
> > liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to
> > a free software project.
> 
> He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which is
> testament to the benefits of open dialogue. By having discussions and
> arguing points, we can convince people that they are wrong. By shunning them,
> we do nothing to change their views and everything to make them believe we
> don't have any real arguments.
> 
> As distasteful as I find such a view, I don't think that anybody should be
> banished for polite society for thoughtcrimes. We can judge people for their
> actions, but there's no evidence or even suggestion that he has ever harmed
> a child.
> 
> > But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being
> > called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald
> > Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of
> > employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social
> > networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS.
> >
> > "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of
> > employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because
> > s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology.
> 
> I'm not 100% convinced by this. RMS has made some enemies in the corporate
> space who probably aren't too unhappy to see this division in our community
> over him.
> 
> > I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be
> > clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean
> > the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on
> > this list.
> >
> > Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where
> > hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get
> > the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed
> > amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is
> > one good reason to keep away.
> >
> > > ... no one can
> > > be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> > > modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> > > FOSS community.
> >
> > It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have
> > expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no
> > one is allowed to"?
> 
> I'm in doubt that anyone can claim to speak for the diaspora of ideas and
> principles that is the free software community. We have participants from
> all corners of the globe, all religions, all political stances. It would
> probably be hard to find unanimous agreement among us on anything, other
> than perhaps that free software is a desirable thing.

The free software community is much similar to India.  A conscious chaos
where you can't teach discipline.  People will feel home sick if there is
too much order.

People are trying to put a western template, but the first freedom is to be
able to work for any purpose.  Using free software even for genocide if you
want.  We should not demand people  to fit into another format which is not
theirs.  The free software movement is too complex and too multi-dimensional 
multi-ethnical - everything multi-.

The free software movement needs a very organic leadership, and not a synthetic
leadership that drops there because they have won some argument with somebody
else.  People have to understand that nation is just an idea, not some god 
giving
thing.  Even the poorest and in the remotest place in the world, even there
one can get to use and adapt free software as he wishes.   
 
> > What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are
> > standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO? POSIX? IEEE? Sorry
> > for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~:
> >
> > Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit :
> > > Hello there
> > >
> > > As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
> > > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also 
> > > openly
> > > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated 
> > > with
> > > the GCC project.
> >
> > I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the
> >

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:05 AM
> From: "John Darrington" 
> To: "Gerald Pfeifer" 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
>  There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
>  to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike
>  David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.
>
> For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly in
> a major role.   I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few days
> ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.  So
> either I subscribed to this list many years ago and it has been dormant until
> recently or someone subscribed me just recently.
>
>  When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
>  and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
>  and contributing.
>
> I disagree.  The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects
> have always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
> Contributors are exactly that.  They offer *contributions* - the very meaning
> of the word implies there is no expectation of anything in return.  Obviously
> I hope all contributors *do* get some satisfaction and maybe even some 
> tangible
> benefit.  But contributions are not to be seen as a means  to gain control of
> the project at a high level.
>
> J'

There are many instances of project maintainers who are not the major
contributors, but are very capable of leading their project.

Many fail to understand the benefits of knowing the role maintainers
play in alleviating or conquering some of the current challenges that
interdisciplinary projects face.  Although I agree that they need to
possess technical experience too.  I see many MBAs trying to parachute
in as a leader without having worked their way up.

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 8:10 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner" 
> To: rodg...@appliantology.com
> Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, dim...@gmx.com, g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
>
> I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.

If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which seems to me
that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic), people would be discouraged
to serve on it.

Years ago I proposed Committee Refreshments and Committee Rotations
for School Governing Bodies in the United Kingdom, which was supported
by the Department for Education and Skills of the UK Government that
existed until 2007.  A strategy that can potentially resolve a lot of
problems within the free software community.

I also suggest the concept of logrolling with laid down safeguards first
applied to legislation by US Congressman David Crockett in about 1835.
This does have benefits in direct democracies.

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:52 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Pankaj Jangid" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D
> >
> > Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like
> > Nathan.
> > Just not to everybody else.
> >
>
> I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and
> standard library, and like Nathan, I work to help make that the case. It
> is certainly true I don't have a lot of concern for the concerns of
> those, whose only apparent contribution to the discussion is 'oooh evil
> bad bigcorp's subverting mah compiler. I will go away now'.

Companies have serious problems right now.  The internet used to run
as a US Benign Dictatorship, under the assumption that the US was generally
behaving in the world's best interest.  That trust has been lost.  If you are
someone in some country somewhere, and you hear that the NSA is getting a copy
of everything.  And IBM and Google have a Press Release saying that they
have fixed a problem.  Do you believe it?  I sure don't.  And many others don't,
and for good reasons.  I also think that will be a bunch of other countries
that will do way worse than what the United States has done.  If we are against
national means of intelligence, all bets are off.  This is compounded by the 
fact
that attack in much easier than defense.  I don't think that's what we are 
trying
to defend against.  We are trying to defend against bulk collection.

But I tend to be optimistic, than humanity as a species tend to solve these 
problems.
It might take one or a few generations.  We might have some terrible world wars
while we're solving it.  But till now we have managed to have more freedom,
more rights, more liberty, century by century.

People have to understand that companies and governments are not made of magic, 
that
they are not breaking systems to anywhere near the extent that we thought they 
were.
This is the most important conclusion that can be taken from Snowden's 
documents.
The reality in that there are many things we can do to make ourselves much more 
secure.
I might have some reservations about Nathan and others regarding the RMS 
debate, but
not that many of them are likely to be consciously injecting malicious code
or introducing vulnerabilities.

If business leaders change the way they look at life, instead of making a whole 
lot
of money and then contributing to some cause, they can structure their business
in such a way that every customer is in some way a partner with them.

However if companies and governments try to conquer people, they will have to 
keep
sitting on top of their head, and they will do everything to make the life of 
business
leaders miserable.

Traditionally, military leaders were the most powerful people.  In the last 
hundred
years, political leaders were the most powerful.  But now and in the future, 
economic leaders will be the most powerful.

We have to start working with economic leaders to make a difference in the way 
they
make decisions, and in the way they conduct their businesses.   This is being 
done,
but is being done very discreetly because it is something that today cannot be
handled publicly.

> > Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible
> > no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.
> >
> > But I'm a "concern troll", right?
> >
> > I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)
> >
>
> Indeed.
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Pankaj Jangid" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >
> > I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
> > just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends
> > on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people
> > are using it.
> >
>
> I think it is useful to consider why people use gcc - I agree that
> without users, there would be no project.
>
> So why /do/ people use it?  I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> "it's the only compiler that will do the job".  For a lot of important
> software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing.  Another big
> reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case
> for Linux systems.  In the embedded development world (where I work),
> the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to
> download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it
> is more often gcc than not.  You use gcc because that is the standard,
> not from choice.
>
> For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so?  I'd guess
> being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher
> than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free
> software" and "open source software".  (For me, a major reason is that
> the same compiler supports a wide range of targets.  That, and that gcc
> is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.)
>
> I suspect that only a very small (but not zero) proportion of gcc users
> care that the project is part of GNU and under the FSF.  I suspect that
> a larger proportion would start caring if they felt (rightly or wrongly)
> that at the top of the hierarchy was a misogynist who patronises and
> sexually harasses women.
>
> (As always, this is just my opinion.)

I use it because I can do the numerical computations for a given task.
Because it is free software I can work unhindered.  RMS could have been
anybody with any type of personality, I would still use it.  It is not
about any qualms about the behaviour of the people who worked on it.
I could also continue the work even after I change employment status
or stop working with particular groups.

But I have to say that there was tremendous progress during the
first eight years of the Gnu Project, and cost practically nothing.
But the advance since then has not been very great.  Another problem
is that there are not many people working on applications.  In mathematics,
for instance, I did not find people currently in the hacking community who
could contribute much.  Additionally, the work is too advanced even for
mathematicians working at undergraduate level.  Those working at graduate
level customarily restrict the code, because principal investigators
customarily compete with their peers by trampling on others and acting nasty.

In a lot of ways, the free software community works better.  Provided, people
are able to keep their interactions within reason, rather than putting too many
demands on each other.  The original hacking spirit has been eroding through
the years, particularly post-2008.

People should start organising things with RMS, if they want to see how good
then really are in making things better.   Rather than limiting themselves
with hacking,  people should try to organise things together with governmental
bodies in various countries.  Organisers will quickly figure out the real
difficulties that come up, and learn from their mistakes to do a better job.

Remembering my first year, I thought I did my homework and done a great job.
In the end I found out that I blew it.  I was frustrated, completely frustrated.

I had to correct my mistakes.  The next few years, I started to introspect and
emphasise in order to correct my mistakes.  I am still making mistakes and it 
is difficult.

Regards

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:14 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> <...snip...>
>
> > If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
> > wonderfully.  If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
> > people act nasty.  That's how it is.
>
> This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much created that
> unpleasant atmosphere full
> of people acting nasty, and a few decades on, some people, notably those
> that do significant
> amounts of work on a project he may have been part of two decades ago,
> no longer want any kind
> of association between their work product and the toxic environment of
> 'people acting nasty'
> that he (for a multitude of reasons) engenders.
>
> We are done here.

Would that not have been the job of the organisers?  Have organised
meetings with Richard, including with governmental bodies and
things progressed decently.  Should people have been wronged, in small
ways or big ones, many countries provide recourse for that.

How it is that many want the Gnu Tag he build.  One can simply continue
the work and have a website or some other way for distribution.  I
frequently do that, make software without the Gnu Association.
Gnu could be better with me, but I left the decision for RMS on whether
he wanted new types of projects that were not port of Gnu at the time.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan 
> Wakely" 
> Cc: "Pankaj Jangid" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D
>
> Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan.
> Just not to everybody else.
>
>
> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
>
> And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share your opinion.
> You can't argue in merit, so you insult me personally.
> I'm fine with this: it says a lot about you and nothing about me.

Welcome to the club, friend. ;)

> In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are stored on 
> their corporate servers.
> And among such corporations are IBM and Google.
>
> And you pretend it's all fine.
>
>
> Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible 
> no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.
>
> But I'm a "concern troll", right?
>
>
> I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)

It's easier than fixing the world economies for sure.

> Giacomo
>
>
> On April 10, 2021 3:04:22 PM UTC, Thomas Rodgers  
> wrote:
> > On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc  writes:
> > >
> > > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control
> > they
> > > have over GCC.
> > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > > does.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
> >
> > They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf
> > of
> > their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea
> > that
> > the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any
> > more
> > than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously
> > worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense
> > concerns
> > to
> > derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to
> > a
> > new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC.
> >
> > Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:59 AM
> From: "David Malcolm" 
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Christopher Dimech" 
> 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org, "David Brown" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > 
> > > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your
> > > > missives 
> > > > on
> > > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> > > Aleksandr
> > > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> > > Hemingway,
> > > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  >From the 
> > > latter
> > > of course!
> > 
> > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > anything 
> > of value
> > to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> 
> Thomas, please don't feed the troll.
> Hope this is constructive
 
Yes, it is better.

Regards
Christopher 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:17 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> >> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives 
> >> on
> >> this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.
> 
> > I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any 
> > value
> > from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make 
> > assumptions
> > about things that you do not know. The moment you assume that you know 
> > because
> > of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep. It is my wish and my 
> > blessing
> > that every human being has their intelligence awake.
> 
> On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
> 
> >> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and 
> >> wanting
> >> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of 
> >> the
> >> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has 
> >> he
> >> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
> >> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
> >> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think 
> >> are
> >> important.
> > If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was 
> > mostly
> > crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
> > Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they 
> > managed
> > to do great things.
> > 
> > So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
> > certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
> > a program as you wish, for any purpose".
> > 
> > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> > Aleksandr
> > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> > Hemingway,
> > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> > latter
> > of course!
> 
> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything 
> of value
> to the discussion of GCC governance then?

There are many instances when one has to work with people, even though 
one does not personally like them.  I have worked with others in the
Free Software Community that have placed themselves on the opposite side
of the debate.  And have no intention of stopping them working.

I also worked with others, including MEPs in Brussels, etc.  There's no
way out of it.  Eventually, one has to get out of bed and face the world.

Irrespective of the attitudes that we take on what we like, and on what we 
don't like.   I like this person, I don't like this person.  Now with this
person, I will do things willingly.  With this other person, I will do things
unwillingly.   But the reality is that everybody is oscillating between 
a good person and a bad person.  It is important to understand this.

If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
wonderfully.  If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
people act nasty.  That's how it is. 

The moment we think we are good, we are entitled to destroy the bad,
isn't it? 

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:37 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "John Darrington" 
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "David Malcolm" 
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:36, John Darrington wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >  Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >  make it one.
> >
> > For the record it was David who first brought up the political allegory so
> > this comment should be directed in his direction.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >
> > As for your second point, I find it disappointing but not suprising that
> > you "presumed" this comment to be an insult.   This is precisely the
> > thing which has caused so much poisonous discourse in recent years.  Some
> > people take any opinion they disagree with and look for ways to interpret
> > it as an insult.   This gives them a lever to claim that anyone who holds
> > that opinion is a chauvanist, a bigot or worse.   This must stop.
> >
>
> I did not take the comment as an insult - I merely presumed that when
> Christopher says someone is acting like the Russian or Chinese
> government, he does not mean it in a good way.  (His later posts make
> that entirely clear.)  I simply don't want to see this turn into a
> political discussion.

It was meant to enlighten you.  Although it has not yet done so, the basic
philosophy of removing people from the community, was the same philosophy
used in Russia and China.

> I agree with you entirely that it is not helpful to perceive insults,
> prejudice or bigotry - in general, it is important to keep the
> discussion polite and try to remain focused.  That is what I wanted to
> do by asking Christopher to avoid politics.

Politics is also my business.  Have heard many discuss "Representations of
values of a group (e.g. of Free Software)", "Marginalisation and removal of
people from all positions in society to undermine the likelihood or making
an impact, rather than being merely spectators but not participants in action".

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:27 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > 
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> >> From: "David Brown" 
> 
> >>
> >> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >> make it one.
> > 
> > It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> > positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the 
> > least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
> > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> > of doing things.
> 
> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting
> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the
> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he
> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are
> important.

If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was mostly
crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they managed
to do great things. 
  
So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
a program as you wish, for any purpose".

Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest Hemingway, 
Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the latter
of course!


> I think that you mix up freedom and free reins.  Freedom is not anarchy.
>  Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as
> important as freedom of speech or politics.
> 
> >>
> >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> >> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> >> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> >  
> > Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements
> > that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
> > 
> 
> I have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and
> the opinions I express are very much my own.  The does not hinder me
> from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users)
> want or need.  I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy
> to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way
> more weighty than those of others.
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 2:53 PM
> From: "Liu Hao" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 在 2021/4/10 上午2:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc 写道:
> > 
> > It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> > positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the
> > least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
> > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> > of doing things.
> >
> 
> Then what's your point? The suppression of somebody is bad? Then what are you 
> attempting to defend? 
> The freedom of software, or of discrimination, of insulting, of harassment? 
> No, that is not what I 
> would do or expect, and not what you western people would either.

Yes, the suppression of a person like Stallman from everything is bad.  I 
defend the freedom of thought.
 
> Chairman Mao actually said that 'women prop up half of the sky', which had a 
> great influence on the 
> Chinese society and has almost eradicated sexism. It's something I can hardly 
> understand why you 
> (singular) still have a very vicious opinion on that.

The suppression of a mass murderer by execution, imprisonment or forced famine 
is
good.  As is good the suppression of the Communist Party of China, for trying to
dominate the people of Hong Kong, Nepal, and Taiwan.

As well as for lying about coronavirus infection rates amongst people in China. 
 
> [I am not meant to participate in the discussion about the history and future 
> of GCC.]
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Liu Hao
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 10:12 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" , g...@gnu.org, "David Brown" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the 
> leadership of the project, Ian.
>
> 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations.
>
> This is a fact.

Many in tech have worked at some point in their lives with large corporations.
This is not wrong it itself because most knowledge is concentrated in highly 
industrialized countries.  I owe much of my technological experience during
my days working with british, dutch and french intelligence.

It is also well known that governments employ about 10% of the best 
mathematicians.
Furthermore I cannot see how you can feel secure if the people involved work 
from
Non-Us Corporations.  There are many countries that are even worse than the US.


> Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US 
> Government:
> https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg
>
> The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-)
>
>
> Giacomo
>
> On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor  wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington <
> > > j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or
> > international
> > > >  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an
> > insult) is
> > > >  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop
> > trying to
> > > >  make it one.
> > > >
> > > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political
> > >
> > > I think David was talking about me:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html
> > >
> > > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a
> > serious
> > > problem in GCC.
> > >
> > > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address
> > it,
> > > I'm moving on.
> > >
> > >
> > > GCC is clearly an US-only project.
> > > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
> > >
> > > This is not intended as an insult.
> > > It's just a fact.
> > >
> >
> > Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely
> > true.
> >
> > Ian
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:17 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 14:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in
> > effect have
> > many valuable things to say.
>
> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives on
> this topic, hoping for exactly that very
> thing to occur.

I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any value
from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make assumptions
about things that you do not know.  The moment you assume that you know because
of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep.  It is my wish and my 
blessing
that every human being has their intelligence awake.

Good Night
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 7:37 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 11:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
>
> [... snip ...]
>
> >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> >> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> >> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> > Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making
> > statements
> > that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
>
> I know, right? He's not even got the cred conferred to a maintainer of
> an empty GNU project on Savannah.

There is no law that says the highest grossing author on a subject knows
the most about it, writes the best about it, or is even more than mediocre
on the subject at hand.

My mathematical work was entirely kept secret until I resigned my commission
in 2014.  Other forms of credibility exist.

https://www.corrieredimalta.com/coronavirus/la-diffusione-del-covid-19-a-malta-evento-b/

But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in effect 
have
many valuable things to say.

Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

Things will still remain good for RMS by those willing to help him.  I use
free software every day and will be a long time before Richard exhausts his
entitlement to help from me!!!

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> >> From: "David Brown" 
> >> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> >> 
> >> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> >>> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if 
> >>> anyone
> >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to 
> >>> step
> >>> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> >>> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities 
> >>> necessary
> >>> to take over the role.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> >> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> >> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> >> harm to the free and open source software worlds.
> > 
> > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
> > his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
> >  
> 
> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> make it one.
> 
> >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> >> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> >> not careful.)
> >  
> >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> >> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> >> someone to fill his shoes.)
> >  
> > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission 
> > for
> > the job.  I certainly don't! 
> >  
> 
> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Christopher Dimech" 
> Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> >> From: "David Brown" 
> >> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> >> 
> >> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> >>> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if 
> >>> anyone
> >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to 
> >>> step
> >>> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> >>> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities 
> >>> necessary
> >>> to take over the role.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> >> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> >> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> >> harm to the free and open source software worlds.
> > 
> > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
> > his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
> >  
> 
> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> make it one.

It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the 
least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
of doing things.

> >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> >> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> >> not careful.)
> >  
> >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> >> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> >> someone to fill his shoes.)
> >  
> > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission 
> > for
> > the job.  I certainly don't! 
> >  
> 
> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> position as "Chief GNUsance".
 
Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements
that imply a representation for the free software world!!!

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 11:48 PM
> From: "Pankaj Jangid" 
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Gabriel Ravier via Gcc  writes:
>
> > RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and
> > doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If
> > you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would
> > be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in
> > commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from
> > corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more
> > commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also
> > remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and
> > the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution,
> > meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not
> > doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented
> > individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer
> > from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much
> > less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die
> > out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't
> > indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC
> > unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less
> > contributions to it.
>
> What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
> a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
> there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
> maintainers are.
>
> And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of
> maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this
> thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated
> cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with
> the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.

RMS made the GNU System without the cohort of active contributions listed.
This means that great things can be accomplished when people is focused
on what they do.  I am sure help will come from other sources if the tools
are valuable enough.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm" 
> 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> > anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> > tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> > 
> > Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> > down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> > would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> > I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> > to take over the role.
> > 
> 
> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> harm to the free and open source software worlds.

David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
 
> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> not careful.)
 
> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> someone to fill his shoes.)
 
I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for
the job.  I certainly don't! 
 
> David Brown
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

 
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:37 PM
> From: "John Darrington" 
> To: "David Malcolm" 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org, "Alfred M. Szmidt" , "Mark Wielaard" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:35:23PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>  
>  > RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others
>  > became
>  > involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
>  > continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
>  > time they wish to do so.
>  
>  I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in
>  general), but RMS is not my leader.

RMS never sent me an Allegiance Oath.
 
> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> 
> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> to take over the role.
> 
>  
>  > Then why do you write this from your employer's email?
>  
>  My employer gives me permission.
> 
> That's good to know.  My employer on the other hand expressly forbids it.
> And I think that is a reasonable prohibition (we're allowed to use their
> internet connection for personal use) but not allowed to use the company
> name (including email addresses) in personal communication.  Even if they
> didn't prohibit this, I wouldn't dream of using my company's email or
> letterhead for personal communication.
>  
>  Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer
>  to keep that address private.
> 
> So in other words, you are happy to make contraversial statements, but don't
> wish to face the responsibility.  Come on David!  By all means question RMS
> (or anyone else) but have the guts to do this under your own identity rather
> than duck in and out behind a veil of quasi-anonymity!

My address is public.  David, if you did not like my reaction, I would
not say that you hesitated in making disparaging comments.  But am not
against using your freedem of speech to see what is going on.

But tho philosophy that is guiding the utterances against RMS by left wing
totalitarians is the same philosophy of that of Mao Zedong - "Life is shit
and then you die!".
 
> I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC.
> 
> J'
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 7:48 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" 
> To: "David Malcolm" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> > > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> > >
> > > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> > > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> > > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> > >
> > > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > > > has
> > > > made a difference?
> > >
> > > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> > > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> > > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> > > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> > > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> > > the
> > > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> > > anymore.
> >
> > This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
> > the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
> > benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
> > the code.
>
> Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But
> having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits.
>
> > Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> > non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> > work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> > copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> > death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> > the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.
>
> Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
> copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
> it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
> just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
> individual copyright holder on their own.
>
> If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
> Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
> projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
>
> I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
> in any action taken on behave of the collective:
> https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf
>
> > > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> > > every
> > > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> > > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> > > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.
> >
> > Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
> > to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
> > GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
> > start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
> > holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
> > clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
> > mistake to use it for software documentation.
>
> Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under
> the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering
> Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF?
>
> > > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > > > copyright holders?
> > >
> > > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> > > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> > > with
> > > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> > > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> > > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> > > almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
> >
> > Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.
>
> It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible.  We have to
> see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back.
> They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF
> relationship:
> https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/
> Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation.
>
> > It's not clear to me to what ex

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:21 AM
> From: "John Darrington" 
> To: "David Malcolm" 
> Cc: g...@gnu.org, "Alfred M. Szmidt" , "Mark Wielaard" 
> 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>  I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
>  literal here.
>
>  No one is literally calling for anyone's head.
>
>
> Nobody has explicitly done so.  However in the last 2 or 3 years there
> has been a growing campaign of hatred.  The people feeding that
> campaign are unhappy with things that RMS and others have said.
> However they have taken it further than that.  These people seek
> eliminate *anyone* who holds certain opinions - they don't care how
> they get eliminated - so long as they go.  What's more, they cite
> numerous putative moralistic justifications to give an air of
> legitmacy to that hatred.
>
> Once such hatefulness becomes accepted, people DON'T any longer make that
> literal--figurative distinction.
>
>  Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
>  associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).
>
> RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others became
> involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
> continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
> time they wish to do so.
>
>
>  My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
>
> Then why do you write this from your employer's email?  That is like
> writing it on the company letterhead.  I suggest that when speaking
> for yourself you use your own email.

Fair points John.

> J'
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
> From: "David Brown" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "David Malcolm" 
> 
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Mark Wielaard" 
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> >> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> >> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> >> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> >> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> >
> > This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> > think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
> >
> > If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> > "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
> >
>
> It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
> name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>
> I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
> important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
> and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
> been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
> anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
> To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
> are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
> fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
> anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
> cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
> RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
> generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
> for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
> remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
> healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
> greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
> running the show.)
>
> For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
>  I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
> public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
> publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
> be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
>
> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.

If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.

A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
don't care.

Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.

> It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
> rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
> - that gcc would be a stronger project if 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 at 10:22 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" 
> Subject: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Hi,
>
> Lets change the subject now that this is about GCC and the FSF.
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to become
> > a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass
> > resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being
> > associated with either of them.
>
> I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
>
> But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
>
> > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC has
> > made a difference?
>
> Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when the
> original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> anymore.
>
> And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of every
> individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.

I have been discussing with Richard Stallman how we could get compatibility
between the GFDL and the other licences.

> > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > copyright holders?
>
> I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation with
> the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
>
> > Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork of
> > GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would prefer
> > to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code. And
> > if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret
> > optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to violate
> > the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was a
> > success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an
> > easier option.
>
> I admit that the only way proprietary compiler writers can compete
> with GCC is by producing a lax-permissive licensed compiler is an odd
> way to win for Free Software. But we should still make sure that GCC
> itself makes it so that users can actually get the sources of the
> compiler they are using and not just some sources that might or might
> not correspond to the binary they are using. Making sure that the code
> reaches actual users and not just some corporate hackers to create a
> proprietary compiler is what counts IMHO. And using strong copyleft
> and having a shared copyright pool of code held by an entity that can
> enforce that is still necessary IMHO.
>
> > Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU?
>
> I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
> is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
> still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a similar
> discussion right now
> https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>

Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Ian,
>
> with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and
> choices, I think you are still missing the point.
>
>
> On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor 
> wrote:
> > But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never
> > really a member of the committee anyhow) as a particular problem.
> > Let's not forget that RMS is an American.
>
> Indeed.
> It's important to note that I'm not, in any way, arguing against
> Americans in GCC (as somebody is trying to frame what I wrote).
>
> I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations
> and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights
> violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing
> Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development.
>
>
> It's not just matter of actual backdoors or priviledged access to
> zero-days: it's mainly a soft power that can influence development of
> GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the
> SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework
> and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering
> Committee).
>
> We are all seasoned developers.
> We know how this sort of politics can influence software development.
>
> We all know that technology is a prosecution of politics by other means.
>
>
> >  So the imbalance you mention was there already.
>
> Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was
> receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee.
>
> I think we do agree that FSF and RMS are really trustworthy when
> it comes to protect Free Software interests.
>
> After all, FSF is the most credible no-profit dedicated to this goal.
>
>
> > And you are confusing my employer with my free software work.

It is acceptable to do free software work, irrespective of the actions
of your employer.  Although one realises that there could be greater
scrutiny on your work.  People would be entitled to question certain
actions and dig deeper than usual because of conflicts of interests
or allegiances that have previously been documented in other cases.

For instance the Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) was a fake hacker
organisation under the command of Directorate of Territorial Surveillance
and the Armed Forces of the French Government.

> No.
>
> Simply, I work in the field since two decades myself.
>
> Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee
> can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee.
>
> As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com
> mail address while serving in the Steering Committee.

It is a personal decision and choice what type of computing or services one
uses.  That does net stop anybody developing free software.

Although the best way is to lead "by example", it is a mistake to demand that
one you cannot do any work within a committee if you do not set a strict policy
for everything one does.  Similarly, it is a mistake to  disengage Richard 
Stallman because of personal views that he may hold.  One could for instance 
take the extreme
position towards Stallman by stating that it is wrong to use boycott all free 
software
that have ever been produced as a result of his work, because of his behaviour.


For instance, it was a mistake for MIT to remove all online courses on physics 
that
he had done.  This is equivalent to censorship, banning, and book burning in 
Nazi
Germany.  Only idiots or evil beings do such things.

I was discussing the case of Walter Lewin in the previous paragraph.

> > > But that's the fact with priviledge: if you have it, you can't see
> > > it.
> >
> > I'm sure that's largely true.  And I'm well aware that I have enormous
> > amounts of privilege.
> >
> > But you write that statement as though it contradicts something that I
> > said.  It doesn't.
>
> It doesn't contraddict what you said, indeed.
>
> On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent
> fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no
> problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request.
>
> You care more about the sensibility of those that share Nathan's values
> and interests (that are pretty similar to your own), than about the huge
> threat that a Steering Committee deeply influenced and controlled by
> US corporations with long ties to the US Department of Defence
> constitutea.
>
>
> Maybe this will attract more US people (or likely-minded ones), but for
> sure, it will pose a huge burden on everybody outside the US to
> contribute and even use GCC.
>
> I would NOT feel safe to contribute my port to GCC, right now.
> I don't feel safe to even rely on GCC for anything.
>
>
> > > > This is free software.  I

Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" 
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Ian,
>
> with all respect with your personal history, your contributions and
> choices, I think you are still missing the point.
>
>
> On April 3, 2021 11:45:23 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor 
> wrote:
> > But you have singled out removing RMS (who as David noted was never
> > really a member of the committee anyhow) as a particular problem.
> > Let's not forget that RMS is an American.
>
> Indeed.
> It's important to note that I'm not, in any way, arguing against
> Americans in GCC (as somebody is trying to frame what I wrote).
>
> I'm scared by the dangerous influence that dangeours US corporations
> and a dangerous military nation with a long history of human rights
> violations (see Snowden's and Assange's revelations and the ongoing
> Assange's trial) HAVE over the GCC development.
>
>
> It's not just matter of actual backdoors or priviledged access to
> zero-days: it's mainly a soft power that can influence development of
> GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the
> SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework
> and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering
> Committee).
>
> We are all seasoned developers.
> We know how this sort of politics can influence software development.
>
> We all know that technology is a prosecution of politics by other means.
>
>
> >  So the imbalance you mention was there already.
>
> Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was
> receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee.
>
> I think we do agree that FSF and RMS are really trustworthy when
> it comes to protect Free Software interests.
>
> After all, FSF is the most credible no-profit dedicated to this goal.
>
>
> > And you are confusing my employer with my free software work.

It is acceptable to do free software work, irrespective of the actions
of your employer.  Although one realises that there could be greater
scrutiny on your work.  People would be entitled to question certain
actions and dig deeper than usual because of conflicts of interests
or allegiances that have previously been documented in other cases.

For instance the Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) was a fake hacker
organisation under the command of Directorate of Territorial Surveillance
and the Armed Forces of the French Government.

> No.
>
> Simply, I work in the field since two decades myself.
>
> Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee
> can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committee.
>
> As a small example among many many others, you are using a @google.com
> mail address while serving in the Steering Committee.

It is a personal decision and choice what type of computing or services one
uses.  That does net stop anybody developing free software.

Although the best way is to lead "by example", it is a mistake to demand that
one you cannot do any work within a committee if you do not set a strict policy
for everything one does.  Similarly, it is a mistake to  disengage Richard 
Stallman because of personal views that he may hold.  One could for instance 
take the extreme
position towards Stallman by stating that it is wrong to use boycott all free 
software
that have ever been produced as a result of his work, because of his behaviour.
For instance, it was a mistake for MIT to remove all online courses on physics 
that
he had done.  This is equivalent to censorship, banning, and book burning in 
Nazi
Germany.  Only idiots or evil beings do such things.

> > > But that's the fact with priviledge: if you have it, you can't see
> > > it.
> >
> > I'm sure that's largely true.  And I'm well aware that I have enormous
> > amounts of privilege.
> >
> > But you write that statement as though it contradicts something that I
> > said.  It doesn't.
>
> It doesn't contraddict what you said, indeed.
>
> On the contrary, it explains WHY you are debating against an urgent
> fix to the GCC Steering Committee on my request, while you had no
> problem to promptly remove Stallman on Nathan's request.
>
> You care more about the sensibility of those that share Nathan's values
> and interests (that are pretty similar to your own), than about the huge
> threat that a Steering Committee deeply influenced and controlled by
> US corporations with long ties to the US Department of Defence
> constitutea.
>
>
> Maybe this will attract more US people (or likely-minded ones), but for
> sure, it will pose a huge burden on everybody outside the US to
> contribute and even use GCC.
>
> I would NOT feel safe to contribute my port to GCC, right now.
> I don't feel safe to even rely on GCC for anything.
>
>
> > > > This is free software.  If you want to make it better, then make
> > > > it better. [...] So prov

Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee

[Christopher Dimech via Gcc]

> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 at 2:06 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" 
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" 
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "Nathan Sidwell" 
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> everybody can see it...
> 
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:05:10 +0100 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 11:06, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > > But from outside your "cultural bubble", we all see that a bunch of
> > > highly controversial [3][4] US corporations (with long term ties
> > > with the USA DoD [5]) are kicking out of the GCC Steering Committee
> > > their only connection with both the FSF and the GNU project.  
> > 
> > If that's what you think happened, you've not been paying attention to
> > this thread. 
> 
> ...I wrote such a long mail, full of references to so many passages of
> your mails in these threads... without paying attention to them.
> 
> What a lucky guy, I am! :-D
> 
> 
> > The SC just did was they were requested to do by (some
> > of) the developers of the project.
> 
> Yeah, "some of".
> 
> In this specific moment, when a global (and well financed) mob is
> attacking RMS personally, for anything they can frame as mischief,
> you were fine to comply with what "some of the developers" asked.
> 
> What about the others?
> Did you consider that many of them might be to scared to oppose?

Even if you consider those who are not scared, the list clearly outstrips
any legitimacy of the anti-stallman group.  I clearly remember Ludovic Courtès
trying to hamstring all Gnu Maintainers and force them to implement Codes of 
Conduct without any authority whatsoever.  Free Software is about having NO 
Owners.
 
Despite corporations' proliferation of codes of conduct, codes oftentimes 
suffer from numerous weaknesses that undermine the whole thing.

> 
> Yet my request is not about Stallman, but about the Steering Committee.
> 
> Please fix the huge global hazard that his removal uncovered.
> 
> 
> Giacomo
>