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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
