Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Peter O'Gorman wrote: Yuhong Bao wrote: and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it. Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see the link I mentioned. Apple does not use a GPLv3 version of GCC. Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing to anything that falls under the GPLv3. It is indeed in-topic. There are four Darwin maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS: darwin port Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Eric Christopher[EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] and three of them are not allowed to read the GCC patches mailing list. They might do something if CCed, but not necessarily so. Same for Objective-C/C++: objective-c/c++ Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] objective-c/c++ Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now I wonder: 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is known to be inactive? 2) who should then get maintainership of darwin? note that there are some patches for darwin like this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/172498 It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this. Paolo
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:47:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Peter O'Gorman wrote: Yuhong Bao wrote: and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it. Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see the link I mentioned. Apple does not use a GPLv3 version of GCC. Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing to anything that falls under the GPLv3. It is indeed in-topic. There are four Darwin maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS: darwin port Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Eric Christopher[EMAIL PROTECTED] darwin port Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] and three of them are not allowed to read the GCC patches mailing list. They might do something if CCed, but not necessarily so. Same for Objective-C/C++: objective-c/c++ Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] objective-c/c++ Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now I wonder: 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is known to be inactive? 2) who should then get maintainership of darwin? note that there are some patches for darwin like this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/172498 It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this. Paolo Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list? I recall that he posted in the last year that he would be more active in gcc (but I can't find that message at the moment). I had attributed the fact that they were not active to the emphasis on llvm at Apple. However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer than the current 4.2 one. Jack
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list? No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple. It must be said also that Mike Stump accepted to review/discuss Darwin/ObjC patches that he was CCed on, but most people don't know that they need to do so. As a side note, Mike also wrote this last February: The SC knows of the issue Still, after six months it would be nice to have a clearer idea of what will happen with respect to Darwin/ObjC, especially since the previous statement (which I suppose was as clear as Mike could do) was buried under an unrelated thread. Paolo
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing to anything that falls under the GPLv3. ... 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is known to be inactive? 2) who should then get maintainership of darwin? note that there are some patches for darwin like this one: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/172498 It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this. I personally don't think there is any need to remove them as maintainers until the FSF finally produces the GPLv3 version of the runtime library license. At that point Apple will be out of excuses, and will have to finally decide in or out on future gcc developmnt. It's worth noting that in a larger sense, Apple is simply not interested in contributing to gcc. If they were interested, they would contribute. They (for some version of they) are using GPLv3 as a tactic to get out of the gcc game while blaming it on us. They have not raised any actual substantial issue with the GPLv3, which is not surprising, since the GPLv3 does not impose any additional requirements on them beyond GPLv2. However, the gcc community can't call them on that until the runtime library license is complete, as its absence is indeed a valid objection. Jack Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer than the current 4.2 one. The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they presumably plan to stop using the gcc frontend. gcc's code is so tangled anyhow, it's not like using the gcc frontend somehow makes LLVM compile code the same way gcc does. Ian
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer than the current 4.2 one. The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they presumably plan to stop using the gcc frontend. gcc's code is so tangled anyhow, it's not like using the gcc frontend somehow makes LLVM compile code the same way gcc does. I'm quite interested in porting llvm-gcc to gcc head, in order to get better Ada support. Apple isn't planning Ada support in their new compiler (clang) as far as I know :) Duncan. PS: I have no connection with Apple.
Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this.
I personally don't think there is any need to remove them as
maintainers until the FSF finally produces the GPLv3 version of the
runtime library license. At that point Apple will be out of excuses,
and will have to finally decide in or out on future gcc development.
I am probably not alone to be extremely interested in understanding more
clearly what is happening on the runtime library license side,
especially with relation to plugins.
The recent thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00292.html
Defining a common plugin machinery is particularly concerned with this
issue (of runtime library license). I'm guessing that since Diego
Novillo asked something, he was expecting/dreaming/knowing? about some
evolution on this.
Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the
Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just
knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before
Christmas (ie in 2008) and that GPL-ed plugins will be somehow blessed
by the SC (or is it the FSF) will be a big relief.
Is something happening on runtime library license, or is there some
unexpected issue which affects existing branches experimenting plugins
(e.g. MELT)?
The only thing I know about runtime library license is the stuff I heard
and read at the june 2008 GCC summit, and I am guessing that a lot of
things happened since. IIRC, I remember having heard in june 2008 that
we have only months, not years, to wait (I did not understood exactly
for what, but it was runtime licence related).
In particular, if dlopen-ing GPL-ed (and even FSF copyright-ed) code is
still a taboo in GCC, I would be glad to be informed...
[I'm writing in some proposals, to get money to work on GCC, that
plugins are indeed appearing in GCC; I hope that I am not entirely wrong]
Regards.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basileatstarynkevitchdotnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
Re: Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Basile STARYNKEVITCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before Christmas (ie in 2008) and that GPL-ed plugins will be somehow blessed by the SC (or is it the FSF) will be a big relief. I have no additional information. I just want to make the point that these issues involve lawyers, and they involve RMS, and it's not a major priority for any of them. It takes time. It's frustrating. But it is most likely not the case that secret negotiations are happening. It is far more likely that nothing is happening at all. There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF, contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it will happen in the time that people have available to work on it. Ian
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:33:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list? No, that would be Stan just because he's not at Apple. It must be said also that Mike Stump accepted to review/discuss Darwin/ObjC patches that he was CCed on, but most people don't know that they need to do so. As a side note, Mike also wrote this last February: The SC knows of the issue Still, after six months it would be nice to have a clearer idea of what will happen with respect to Darwin/ObjC, especially since the previous statement (which I suppose was as clear as Mike could do) was buried under an unrelated thread. Paolo Do we know if Apple still intends to update the ObjC in FSF gcc to v2.0? Jack
Re: Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basile STARYNKEVITCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before Christmas (ie in 2008) and that GPL-ed plugins will be somehow blessed by the SC (or is it the FSF) will be a big relief. I have no additional information. I just want to make the point that these issues involve lawyers, and they involve RMS, and it's not a major priority for any of them. It takes time. It's frustrating. But it is most likely not the case that secret negotiations are happening. It is far more likely that nothing is happening at all. There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF, contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it will happen in the time that people have available to work on it. How large is large?
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: The SC knows of the issue Still, after six months it would be nice to have a clearer idea of what will happen with respect to Darwin/ObjC, especially since the previous statement (which I suppose was as clear as Mike could do) was buried under an unrelated thread. Paolo Do we know if Apple still intends to update the ObjC in FSF gcc to v2.0? Jack We don't have any short-term plans to do so. However, all the code for ObjC 2.0 and even the new C Blocks feature is available in the llvm-gcc repository. One potential issue is that while Apple has a blanket copyright assignment with the FSF, I don't know whether code in the llvm-gcc repo is auto-assigned to the FSF. -Chris
Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer than the current 4.2 one. The LLVM folks are writing a new frontend anyhow. In the future they presumably plan to stop using the gcc frontend. gcc's code is so tangled anyhow, it's not like using the gcc frontend somehow makes LLVM compile code the same way gcc does. I'm quite interested in porting llvm-gcc to gcc head, in order to get better Ada support. As Duncan says here, Apple and the LLVM Project really are separable entities. As a developer on the LLVM Project, I'd love to see a new version of llvm-gcc based on ToT GCC. I'm not sure how technically feasible it is, but it would be even better for future versions of llvm-gcc to be based on the new GCC plugin model. -Chris
Re: Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
NightStrike [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF, contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it will happen in the time that people have available to work on it. How large is large? More than you want to pay personally. Think: enough to hire another staff member to work on it. To be clear, I'm not saying it won't get done. It will get done. But it is in effect like any other volunteer job. Our position with regard to the people who need to do the work is like a gcc user's position with regard to us. Ian
Re: Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
NightStrike [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a simple technique which anybody is free to use to make this
happen much faster: make a large donation to the SFLC and/or the FSF,
contingent on this issue being finished. In the absence of that, it
will happen in the time that people have available to work on it.
How large is large?
More than you want to pay personally. Think: enough to hire another
staff member to work on it.
To be clear, I'm not saying it won't get done. It will get done. But
it is in effect like any other volunteer job. Our position with
regard to the people who need to do the work is like a gcc user's
position with regard to us.
I fully understand that position, but it triggers another question: what
company (or kind of companies) would want GCC plugins to happen really fast?
Is there any big coorporation, already contributing to GCC, which needs
plugin quickly? I cannot name any.
My feeling is that plugin will become progressively extremely useful to
*new* companies, which are not yet working within GCC. This mostly is
the case because in my perception plugins will open new use of GCC, like
illustrated by the replacing sed grep by gcc papers from Mozilla
folks (Tarek et al.). My intuition is that plugins will mostly enhance
all the non-code-generation activities in GCC.
Big hardware companies (those traditionally investing in GCC, like
Intel, AMD, Apple, ...) probably do not need plugins (except if they
wanted to provide *proprietary* plugins, which I believe the next
runtime license will try to prohibit), they can and do contribute to GCC
inside.
Big software or services companies (IBM, Google) probably also don't
need plugins (except to enhance GCC with a plugin that they use only in
house and do not intend to distribute, but for that use an inhouse
patched GCC is enough).
So I cannot guess a company willing to invest big bucks on the runtime
license issue, but I am probably wrong (and not naive enough to believe
that companies will discuss their GCC related strategies motivations
here, publicly, on this list).
Regards
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basileatstarynkevitchdotnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
