But GPL3 has been a good license for GCC; giving up the theoretical ability
to change the license (other than to a later GPL) does not seem like a
significant loss.
That will cause trouble incorperating code or documentation snippets
from the code base into the GCC manual; which is not
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
>From the GCC mission statement:
- Other components
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
That is true for all GNU project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue
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
Please move these off-topic discussions somewhere else, people are
already annoyed and angry as it is -- on both sides!
These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they
are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list.
To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects
users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract:
"We've always done it this way" is not necessarily a good defence of an
existing practice.
That wasn't the claim, it is how we do it currently, and have been
doing for decades though. If you have concrete suggestions, please
send them to the GNU Advisory Committee.
> Â Â The GNU
[...] That "gnu-stucture" document was written by RMS a couple of
months ago and doesn't represent how the GNU project and its
maintainers have worked for years.
It reflects the same message that has been sent to new GNU maintainers
for the decades. The GNU structure and organization
I ("new moderator") won't recount what happened, it is neither here,
or there, but Mark is presenting a very biased view of what occured,
and also one of the reasons why he no longer is a moderator.
The claims about doxxing, etc, are entierly untrue and unfounded.
A good reason why Richard should be on the SC is to that he does
demonstrates the values of the GNU project, that of the free software
movement and the FSF. GCC is a important project, and having the head
of the GNU project involved -- even if mostly uninvolved in daily
topics, is a ultimately a
10 matches
Mail list logo
