Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenRISC Will Be Accepted Into The GCC Compiler

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

  • OpenRISC Will Be Accepted Into The GCC Compiler

    Phoronix: OpenRISC Will Be Accepted Into The GCC Compiler

    The GCC Steering Committee is accepting OpenRISC as the newest architecture port for inclusion into the GNU Compiler Collection...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...pting-Into-GCC

  • #2
    Well - isn't this is asking for trouble?
    The original developers were not ok with the license. Along comes another guy, quickly rewriting the "hot pieces" and everything is supposed to be fine?? Was this done with the consent of the original developers? What is their standpoint on this? I would understand if they're upset. I would even understand them leaving the project.
    While all of this might be completely legal and perhaps even general practice in open source development, we should be a bit more aware of the impact that such decisions can have.
    Not everything that is legal is automatically also a good thing to do.

    Comment


    • #3
      WTF, why would they assign the copyright to FSF? It's open source anyway.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by msotirov View Post
        WTF, why would they assign the copyright to FSF? It's open source anyway.
        Any code contributions to GCC requires copyright assignment to the FSF.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael View Post
          Any code contributions to GCC requires copyright assignment to the FSF.
          Why? Is it so they can change the license to GPLv4 when (if ever) that is released?
          That requirement is not a part of the GPL itself as far as I know.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johanb View Post
            Why? Is it so they can change the license to GPLv4 when (if ever) that is released?
            https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              Aha, so to avoid cases like these then I guess?

              https://opensource.com/article/17/8/...t-profiteering

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lowflyer View Post
                Well - isn't this is asking for trouble?
                The original developers were not ok with the license. Along comes another guy, quickly rewriting the "hot pieces" and everything is supposed to be fine?? Was this done with the consent of the original developers? [/B]
                No its not asking for trouble at all. And its a clean room from scratch coding of the the bits & pieces to get OpenRisc support in the upstream GCC codebase which is a good thing. 100% legal and ethical. It's not any different then being pissed off at FreeBSD or Linux for being clones of UNIX.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by msotirov View Post
                  WTF, why would they assign the copyright to FSF? It's open source anyway.
                  Copyright is for ownership. And they need ownership to be able to enforce it, not simply "licensed code" which is what "open source anyway" would be.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                    Copyright is for ownership. And they need ownership to be able to enforce it, not simply "licensed code" which is what "open source anyway" would be.
                    I guess as a millennial I just don't really get the concept of copyright and ownership of non-tangible things.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X