Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

[deanjo]

BTW, the title of this should actually be "FSF is blocking Apples contribution to GCC". The FSF can pull it in if they want, it's their own issue that they want the copywrite. But it's nice to see some eyes being opened here.

[hal2k1]

BTW, the title of this should actually be "FSF is blocking Apples contribution to GCC". The FSF can pull it in if they want, it's their own issue that they want the copywrite. But it's nice to see some eyes being opened here.

Once again, GCC is FSF's code. If Apple are trying to add something into the GCC codebase which goes against what FSF want, such as for example if Apple tried to include some patented feature without giving everyone a patent license, then the FSF has every right to block such contributions.

GCC is FSF's product, not Apple's.

[deanjo]

Once again, GCC is FSF's code.

Ahh but the patches are NOT their code. It's apples.

If Apple are trying to add something into the GCC codebase which goes against what FSF want, such as for example if Apple tried to include some patented feature without giving everyone a patent license, then the FSF has every right to block such contributions.

Again, it is the FSF blocking it, not Apple. Thanks for making the point

GCC is FSF's product, not Apple's.

No one is arguing that GCC is FSF's product, not Apple, not anybody. The code in question however was not made by the FSF, it was made by Apple. It's the FSF's own action preventing the patches being pulled in. It is it's own restrictions blocking it therefore it is wrong saying that it is Apple blocking it as it is actually the FSF blocking it.

FSF=All your base R belong to us

[benmoran]

Ok so Apple technically doesn't have to assign it's copyright over to the FSF. But this isn't about technicalities. It's about Apple not doing the right thing. It's just simple business greed.

The problem is that people are so used to businesses getting away with things because "technically" it's legal. People should focus on what's right, not what's technically legal because of a loophole. Shit like this is why I don't support Apple.

[deanjo]

Ok so Apple technically doesn't have to assign it's copyright over to the FSF. But this isn't about technicalities. It's about Apple not doing the right thing. It's just simple business greed.

The problem is that people are so used to businesses getting away with things because "technically" it's legal. People should focus on what's right, not what's technically legal because of a loophole. Shit like this is why I don't support Apple.

What is "right" is the FSF acknowledging contributions of their perspective contributors without trying to make it their own property. That is what is right.

[KAMiKAZOW]

GCC is FSF's code.

Only because everyone needs to assign the copyright to the FSF.
How much of GCC was actually written by FSF members?

if Apple tried to include some patented feature without giving everyone a patent license

This sentence sadly proves how clueless you are.
Read the GPL ? both v2 and v3. Both GPL revisions contain clauses about patents. GPLv2 clearly forbids in ?7 to distribute the code if it does ?not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly?.

[KDesk]

BTW, the title of this should actually be "FSF is blocking Apples contribution to GCC". The FSF can pull it in if they want, it's their own issue that they want the copywrite. But it's nice to see some eyes being opened here.

+1
You are so right, the Apple patches are under a license compatible with the gcc code license, so the only ones that do not allow the patches to be in gcc is the FSF.

[deanjo]

BTW, the title of this should actually be "FSF is blocking Apples contribution to GCC". The FSF can pull it in if they want, it's their own issue that they want the copyright. But it's nice to see some eyes being opened here.

Oops, gotta fix the spelling

[allquixotic]

Did it ever occur to anyone that the FSF requires copyright assignment to them for GNU projects for a reason?

It's to prevent exactly the scenario we have today with the Linux kernel, where the copyright assignment spans thousands of people, several of whom are dead, and the rest of whom are divided on which license they'd like to license it under. So for all intents and purposes, the mainline product "Linux" can never be re-licensed under any other license than the GPLv2 (only). The FSF wants to be able to relicense their software under a newer, better GPL if they write one.

[deanjo]

Did it ever occur to anyone that the FSF requires copyright assignment to them for GNU projects for a reason?

It's to prevent exactly the scenario we have today with the Linux kernel, where the copyright assignment spans thousands of people, several of whom are dead, and the rest of whom are divided on which license they'd like to license it under. So for all intents and purposes, the mainline product "Linux" can never be re-licensed under any other license than the GPLv2 (only). The FSF wants to be able to relicense their software under a newer, better GPL if they write one.

Ya and what if the contributor doesn't agree with the license change, should that contributors wishes be ignored? If the kernel turned to GPL3 chances are you would see a lot less contributions from many companies that currently do contribute to the kernel. Linus has no interest even to change the license anyways. What the FSF wants is unlimited control and it's a victim of it's own greed. It's no longer a case of "free as in speech" but a case of "free what the FSF wants to do with as they please".