Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

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

  • Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

    Phoronix: Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

    Yesterday on the mailing list for GCC is was brought up if Apple's Objective-C 2.0 patches for the GNU Compiler Collection could be merged back into the upstream GCC code-base as maintained by the Free Software Foundation. Even though Apple's modified GCC sources still reflect the FSF as the copyright holder and are licensed under the GNU GPLv2+, it doesn't look like Apple wants their compiler work going back upstream any longer...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODU4Nw

  • #2
    And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?

    In any case, this is yet another sign that Apple does not intend well for FOSS.

    Comment


    • #3
      And the obvious reason why Apple is doing this: http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/gl...ticleid=351537

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
        And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?
        GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible (v3 has "further restrictions" from the perspective of v2). Also, IIRC the GCC project won't accept major contributions without the copyright being assigned to the FSF.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
          And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?
          FSF requires any code being merged into gcc (or any of their projects) to have its copyright be assigned over to the FSF so the FSF maintains clear ownership of the code. This is what Apple stopped doing.

          Comment


          • #6
            gplv3 sucks, period.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
              gplv3 sucks, period.
              Who are you to judge it?

              Comment


              • #8
                @eikenberry & Ex-Cyber: Oh, it's a matter of copyright assignment then. Makes sense.

                @nanonyme: How is that in any way relevant to this matter? Explain please!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                  @nanonyme: How is that in any way relevant to this matter? Explain please!
                  Isn't it obvious? Someone could write Objective-C 2.0 code and compile it with GCC if they did this. If you pulled in the right bits and had a Mach-O backend, you could write stuff that runs on Cocoa without owning a Mac. Apple wants to make sure that the only way to write native iPhone/iPad apps is to buy a Mac. Of course that doesn't say anything about Mono, Qt, etc. which we can already use to write iPhone/iPad apps; these frameworks may become relevant in light of Apple's recent decision.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    someone could make a go-gcc project, that picks up patches that dont have FSF copyright assignment. not sure if there is much point though. i dont think there is much use of objective-C outside apple.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                      Who are you to judge it?
                      anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

                      GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ragas View Post
                        anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

                        GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.
                        GPL2 ensures developer freedom. GPL3 helps ensure user freedom. Well, and developer freedom some too, since they both effect each other, plus the anti-patent clauses in GPL3 help protect developers as well as users. Pretty simple really. You just have to ask yourself, "Do I want a company using my software in a way which removes freedoms for the user?" If you don't care, use GPL2, if you do, use GPL3.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ragas View Post
                          anarki2 sad it a bit harsh, but I too think, that GPLv3 is a step in the wrong direction. It's not based on enhancing the freedom of people but on protecting and propagating Open Source. That doesn't seem so wrong at first sight but it also takes away many possibilities and I don't think it's a good Idea to try and force everyone to use OSS.

                          GPLv2 in comparison is build just to give people the right to change their Software.
                          The problem though is that as it stands, people **ARE** being forced willingly (that does sound funny, doesn't it?) to use binary software. This does need to be balanced out in some way, and forcing open source on the world may be helpful in at least some cases.

                          Just remember that freedom isn't actually natural. Most people support freedom in theory, but in practice prefer the organized control offered by the ball and chain. If that wasn't the case, then there would be an unorganized, but ABSOLUTE boycott of evil-DRM, taxes, patents, and Microshod... but instead, all we have is a loosly organized association of freedom-lovers who are cheered on in theory, but ignored when it is time to take a stand.

                          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. Those people who like freedom will accept it without being forced. Those people who like to be told what to think will accept it because you are telling them what to think and they need that.

                          I realize that both options are a contradiction, the big question is which contradiction is the least evil?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
                            gplv3 sucks, period.
                            What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ah, I just read that Ragas is an uneducated moron, too.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X