Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hmm. So much for that communication thing

    I was trying to distinguish between "using the code under a specific license without changing the license text in the file" and "changing the license text in the file such that future modifications to that copy of the code would not be available under all of the original licenses".

    I believe the first is OK but the second is not. I think you are saying that you believe the second is OK as well, am I correct ?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      Hmm. So much for that communication thing

      I was trying to distinguish between "using the code under a specific license without changing the license text in the file" and "changing the license text in the file such that future modifications to that copy of the code would not be available under all of the original licenses".

      I believe the first is OK but the second is not. I think you are saying that you believe the second is OK as well, am I correct ?
      OK, I understand what you're saying now. I do believe the second is also OK, just because I've seen it done so many times. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what legal status that text has. Is it licensed under the GPL just like the rest of the file? Is it a separate work? Is it not enough text, and therefore not covered by copyright? Is it unclear and will a judge ask an expert what the accepted practice in the industry is?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by milki View Post
        (OTOH it's very generous of you to educate me about the FSFs actual stance on software patents. Maybe you should also recite the four freedoms, just in case I missed them too.)
        No problem, take your time :http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

        Originally posted by milki View Post
        The question I raised was why the FSF isn't happy with a purely GPL2+ licensed code contribution. GCC is GPL2+ ANY LATER LICENSE. But this in itself doesn't allow the FSF to relicense it as GPLv3, because that relicensing would miss the Apple sw patent voucher.
        But where does it say that FSF isn't happy with GPL2 or LATER contributions? This was about copyright attribution.

        Originally posted by milki View Post
        It doesn't explain why the FSF is dishonest about using the GNU GPL, when a "FSF Assign-Us-Your-Copyrights License" or extra clause is what they really want.
        Why would they need a new licence? All they prefer is copyright assignment for their own FSF projects, which is due to legal issues in case of licence violations of FSF projects. It does not affect any other GPL projects (unless of course they would themselves want to assign their copyrights over to FSF). Your attempts to paint this as 'dishonesty' really shows you are nothing but a troll who just registered here to attack FSF for some reason.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
          At the very least one person from Google is contributing as well Rafael Espindola.
          Makes me happy, because without corporate (apart from Apple) backing I fear it will be a compiler that works great on darwin but all other platforms are third rate citizens. I haven't checked on the last release (2.7), but in previous releases link time optimization (LTO) wasn't available on any other platforms other than darwin, despite having been in llvm before gcc had it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            In my opinion, the only solution to this is to FORCE freedom on the world... and I think that that is what GPLv3 tries to accomplish.
            I usually don't post in philosophical threads, but this sentence caught my eyes.
            While I'm certain that you only meant it in a confined context (computer software), please keep in mind that Communism, National-socialism (In its pre-WWII form), let alone pre-modern-age theocracies, all tried to force their view of utopia on the world, and in all cases bad things followed.

            Back to the subject at hand, first you'll try and persuade people to use OSS software, but soon-afterwards you'll start dragging people to special courts just because they prefer to use proprietary software.

            - Gilboa
            DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX780, F21/x86_64, Dell U2711.
            SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F21/x86_64, Dell U2412..
            BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F21/x86-64.
            LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F21/x86_64.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gilboa View Post
              Back to the subject at hand, first you'll try and persuade people to use OSS software, but soon-afterwards you'll start dragging people to special courts just because they prefer to use proprietary software.
              - Gilboa
              In what way are anyone dragging people to special court because they prefer prorietary software?

              I don't know what he meant by trying to force freedom on the world, and I certainly don't know how GPLV3 would accomplish such a task.
              Developers have the choice of writing proprietary code, GPL licenced code, BDS licenced code, public domain code etc. I trust code authors are perfectly capable of choosing the licence (or lack thereof) for their code. If you want to use someone else's code, you abide by their conditions, be they monetary, licences, or whatever it is. If you don't like the conditions you leave the code alone, it's simple really.

              Comment


              • As I said in the beginning of my post, I do not assume that he intended to create a freedom police that will force people to use OSS software. However, once you start walking down the slippery slope of forcing people to confront with -your- view of freedom (his words, not mine), freedom police (pun intended) is never too far ahead.

                - Gilboa
                DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX780, F21/x86_64, Dell U2711.
                SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F21/x86_64, Dell U2412..
                BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F21/x86-64.
                LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F21/x86_64.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gilboa View Post
                  I usually don't post in philosophical threads, but this sentence caught my eyes.
                  While I'm certain that you only meant it in a confined context (computer software), please keep in mind that Communism, National-socialism (In its pre-WWII form), let alone pre-modern-age theocracies, all tried to force their view of utopia on the world, and in all cases bad things followed.

                  Back to the subject at hand, first you'll try and persuade people to use OSS software, but soon-afterwards you'll start dragging people to special courts just because they prefer to use proprietary software.

                  - Gilboa
                  On the other hand, I rarely miss an opportunity to post in this kind of threads : )

                  While I understand your reasoning, I want to make clear that equating national-socialism with communism given the information now available about their respective performances on human lives lost is an anachronism, and often you hear this from not at all innocent right wing commentators with an interest in throwing mud to advance their agenda or block that of the opposition. While communism set out to bring human freedom to the masses--however so much anybody can disagree about what freedom is or how wrong they were--fascism and national-socialism ideologies had at their core the conviction that people are born unequal (race, nation, gender). We make a historical disservice to people who, at the time, fought for the ideal of human emancipation, by comparing them to those who fought to prevent it.

                  But as I said, other than finding that comparison inappropriate, I understand and actually agree with your logic. There should be no need to 'force freedom' down anyone's throat. Education rather than coercion is surely the way to go about this. In any case, I don't think 'forcing freedom to the world' while speaking about a software license--which you are actually free to choose--should raise this sort of concerns (although I'm well aware of the cheap, moralistic, fanatic talking of some free software advocates).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                    While I understand your reasoning, I want to make clear that equating national-socialism with communism
                    Meh, national-socialism was just a joke concept pulled up by Hitler to try to squash communism in Germany and pull its supporters to support him instead, really. Nothing to do with socialism other than the word. I don't really approve of the whole term. Just use Nazism, nationalists was what they were.

                    Comment


                    • Now that Godwin's law has been proven once again I guess we can leave this thread to die

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X