> Maybe if you spent less time worried about inconsequential things
> like people's "offensive" language, and more time worried about how
> your country (you live in the Western world, correct?)
We are all responsible for our choice of words. We aren't responsible
for the actions or policies of
> A "file name" is the file's name. It is a property of a file, like the
> inode or size. The name exists (or not) regardless of whether we know
> what it is.
>
> A "filename" is a syntactic element, the thing itself, a string of
> characters. It is supplied as input or rendered as output.
> A Certification Mark is the proper way to formally and legally enforce such
> requirements.
BTW, nobody is or was at all confident that the Ada mark was legally
enforcable. I'm in the camp that it isn't.
> telling people they cannot patch the source code without permission
Nobody is telling
> In order to be a validated Ada compiler, a compiler must pass
> an extensive suite of programs called the Ada Compiler Validation
> Capability (ACVC).
FYI: the current name for this is ACATS: Ada Conformity Assessment Test
Suite.
>"to be able to use the word rust in a distribute
> Normal use of a word isn't something that Trademarks prevent.
In general, no, but what it prevents is using the word in a way that
would produce confusion with an "official" use of that mark. If the
word that constitutes the mark is too general, then the trademark
shouldn't have been granted.
> If these bureaucratic parasites (but I repeat myself) don't want to
> use GCC, or Clang, then they can write their own compiler suite from
> scratch. Doubt that's going to happen, so this "investigation" is
> simply yet another frivilous waste of taxpayer dollars.
I won't blame this on bureaucra
> I think you are misinterpreting when you need a trademark license for
> usage a word mark in an implementation of a compiler for a programming
> language. Note that gcc used to come with a full implementation of the
> Java programming language, compiler, runtime and core library
> implementation
> just as with the Java Trademark, you as developers can say "gust is
> compatible with the rust language" but you *cannot* say "gust is
> compatible with rust".
Note that trademarks are adjectives, not nouns (and only apply to specific
nouns, so I'm not sure what you mean here.
> Should this question be posed to the Linux distribution that NASA is using?
Yes, most likely. But exactly how Free Software fits into the
Buy America Act (what she's talking about) is less than clear.
> > 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
> That would surely only be relevant if people wanted to use their
> telephones to compile code?
That's not completely clear. It would certainly be true if the compiler
were included on the phone, whether or not the compiler was actually used.
But I was more addressing the general comment that
> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
But note that some cellphone manufacturers (e.g, Samsung) have taken
steps
> 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.
Yes, as
> You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
For those who aren't aware of it, this has been IBM's position for
many decades. It's not a new position. But they are unique in the
extremeness of their position on this, so generalizing this would be a
mistake.
> 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 o
> So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers could
> read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them).
I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's
secret exchanges"?
> 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.
> You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software,
> because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it.
This is not correct and I suspect is a misunderstanding of what
"government data rights" means.
> >> It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what the
> >> actual relations are,
> > Why? What would that gain? I go back to my analogy of the British Queen.
> > What would be gained by "clarifying" that if she actually intervenes
> > non-trivially in the government of any Commonwealt
> The authority of the FSF, GNU and RMS over GCC is and has been a
> fiction for decades,
For the most part, I agree.
> It would be usefull to clarify with the FSF and GNU what the
> actual relations are,
Why? What would that gain? I go back to my analogy of the British Queen.
What would be ga
> The choice to /not/ 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.
Although I agree with the sentiment, there's a real risk that if we
were heading in that direct
> 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.
I agree. Look at the huge ongoing debate about Section 230 in the US
that's been going on for at leas
> For developers, I think the GPL matters very much. It introduces
> fairness in the contribution process - companies and individuals
> can contribute code knowing that it can't be taken away and locked
> up, to be modified, sold and distributed as binary packages
> (eg. Nvidia).
Note that this di
> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> always the direction in which it *should* go.
I agree. And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.
> To give just one small pr
> 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.
Certainly that was its initial intent, but I'd argue that a
> I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with
> something like a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be
> another free software project's contributor (as is my case).
I suspect that's not true. It certainly wasn't true when more major
large companies used GCC to compile
> > 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.
>
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority. Assi
> 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
> 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 agree, but I'm not clear if you're claiming that that is or is not
currently the case. I believe it is.
> > > 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 c
> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
The SC is the "GNU maintainer" for GCC. The GNU project has oversight on
the maintainers of every GNU project, including GCC. The change to the
web page didn't affect that: RMS still has oversight on the SC's
decision
> 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.
> 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.
I don't think I'd consider the Steering Committee "the leadership of
the project". In what sense do they "lead" th
> Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
>
> Power does not "flow" from RMS. Since you have used a political analogy:
> I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.
I think it's like the Queen of England. As a British person I used to
know said: "The Queen of England
> Yet enough to slow down certain developments such as Nathan's libcody
> or the plugin framework.
The SC had no role in that, as was discussed here.
> You can also put trustworthy and credible observers to protect the
> interests of the global Free Software movement.
How is an "observer" going
> 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.
I agree that that's a concern, but th
> If RMS had ever done the same (pretty unlikely, Fortran isnt't his
> thing), I would have done the same without thinking twice about it.
I agree with that sentiment. The fact that somebody has a certain
role doesn't necessarily mean that the question is asked with that hat
on: it may be nothing
> They claim that university owns copyright to my code if I wrote it
> for a school-related research project.
That's potentially correct. And the purpose of them signing the
disclaimer is to release that interest so that only you need to sign
the assignment.
The other way of doing it would be f
> 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise -
> they are deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his
> views to look immoral).
I would like to suggest that this discussion will go better without
making accusations that people are "deliberately" doing something.
> I respect that you want stay out of the discussion, but I think that to
> present this as some larger societal issue which is somewhat academic
> is wrong.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say or imply that. What I meant to say is
that the very specific discussion we're having in this forum *mirrors*
t
> For a leadership position, which serves as an example for
> the community and to some extent demonstrates the values shared by the
> community, I think it is reasonable that there is a decreased
> expectation of privacy.
.. and libel and defamation laws in the US reflect that, for example.
> I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more
> familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the
> stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was
> more the tone of the OP I objected to.
I mostly want to stay out of this and will le
42 matches
Mail list logo
