> 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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,
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
> 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.
> 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,
> 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
> 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 th
-
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:
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
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
> 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.
> 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
> 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 vi
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
>
> 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
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
-
-
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:
> 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
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
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
> 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
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&q
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
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 &
> >
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> >> ===
> >>
> >> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> >
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> >>
> 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
> >
> 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
> 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:
>
> 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
> 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
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:
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> >
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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 occu
ker 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 t
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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:
>
>
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
