Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

[deanjo]

Meh in the end as Clang and LLVM pick up steam, GCC will eventually become a thing of the past which a select few will use. It will be a few years off but it will continue as the FSF keeps tightening the noose on itself.

[nanonyme]

Meh in the end as Clang and LLVM pick up steam, GCC will eventually become a thing of the past which a select few will use. It will be a few years off but it will continue as the FSF keeps tightening the noose on itself.

Keep in mind Clang is mainly a C-compiler family pack for mainly x86 systems. GCC is a compiler collection for tons of languages on tons of platforms. They're kinda similar but Different.

[Apopas]

FSF=All your base R belong to us

I think you misstyped...
Correction:
All your base R belong to everyone.

[Apopas]

No; they just want to remain consistent with policies that have existed since before Objective-C as a language existed. They have always (rightfully) been concerned about the consequences of having their code copyright attributed to other entities, because the ability to relicense the code quickly approaches impossibility as the number of copyright assignees increases.

This isn't about GPLv3 or any particular license. It's about the principle of being able to relicense code as the legal landscape changes. Not even proprietary companies are unrealistic enough to believe that a single, static work of text can remain legally solvent and relevant over an indefinite period of time in the face of ever-changing laws in jurisdictions around the world. That is why many EULAs change from year to year in subtle ways. Since the GPL isn't a form of WTFPL (where the answer to a question beginning with "Can..." is "Yes!"), the license text necessarily must evolve over time, even if all they want to do is maintain exactly the same level of freedom that is granted today. But Linux, for instance, is something that will never see the benefit of a new license, even if it were something like, hypothetically, a GPL v2.1 that just clarifies some legal language to improve its defensibility in court, without adding any new clauses.

Being stuck with the same license in perpetuity is a really foolhardy thing to do, regardless of whether the copyright holder's intentions are pure as snow, sinister as MSFT, or something in between. The disadvantages are plain to see, and they only become more severe as time goes on. And the only way to guarantee that you will be able to relicense the code is to keep the number of copyright assignees down to a manageable number -- less than 10 would be practical; 2 to 5 would be easy; but 1 is the easiest and most guaranteed route.

And for the record, there are many other projects and companies that require copyright assignment in order to contribute -- Ubuntu, for example. I don't think it is necessary to have all FOSS code licensed to the FSF; rather, that each separate software project/product has its own copyright assignees kept to a manageably low number. Once the number exceeds 1, the chances of disagreements, death, etc. increase, so really the best thing is to keep it to 1.

+1
Finally someone who can see behind the commonly used words of greed and license. I wish I could write english well enough to explain me myself as well.

Even in the free world, there has to be an order to things.

Exactly! Unfortunately most people around here believe in a free world you are able to do whatever you want!

No, the FSF fights for more Free Software code, not open source. Just correcting your terminology. Don't put words in the FSF's mouth. You can call Free Software and Open Source the same thing when you're talking generically about code falling under a license that is both Free and Open Source, but when you're saying what the FSF fights for, at least represent what they fight for, accurately.

The GNU project's copyright attribution rules are nothing new. They have always existed. Everyone who has ever contributed to a GNU system has known about these rules. Has the FSF always been greedy? What makes them greedy now, if they weren't greedy in 1985 when they were trying to start a movement to promote the sharing of knowledge? Open Source didn't exist back then, but the copyright attribution policy did. I ask you, at what point does an unchanging policy become greedy when it wasn't before?

Seriously, go use LLVM and BSD and BusyBox if you don't like (or more commonly, don't understand) GNU's policies. The onus is, and always has been on contributors to be aware of the attribution policy and to accept it. This has worked out for the FSF and GNU since I was born. One proprietary software company decides to go against the policy and suddenly GNU is the bad guy? Maybe that's exactly what Steve Jobs wanted; to turn people like you against the Free Software movement. You're playing right into their hands.

[RealNC]

I think you misstyped...
Correction:
All your base R belong to everyone.

You missed the joke. It's still to "us", not "everyone", since it's not enough for them to place your code under the GPL, you also need you to give up all your rights on the code and they want to own it.

"All your base are belong to us" applies perfectly. Your correction makes zero sense.

[Apopas]

You missed the joke. It's still to "us", not "everyone", since it's not enough for them to place your code under the GPL, you also need you to give up all your rights on the code and they want to own it.

"All your base are belong to us" applies perfectly. Your correction makes zero sense.

Pfff I thought he meant the country "us"... see who misses the jokes?

[admax88]

That's all nice and all but IMHO that is still asking to "put all the eggs into one basket", entrusting it to one person who continuously changes the rules of the game. It no longer respects the rights of the contributor without asking them to fall on the sword first.

Since when has this "one person" been continuously changing the rules of tha game?

The greed here is with FSF; they're greedy and want more than they deserve.

The code is there. Either take it or leave it (just like Linux does.) Apple is in no way required to play ball with FSF's overly anal policies.

The FSF fights for more open source code, and now that they get it, they want more than just open source: they want to *own* all the code. If that's not greed, then I don't know what is.

This isn't about greed, its about protection. First of all the FSF isn't trying to own ALL of the code. They just want to own all the code in the GNU system. If you don't want your code owned by FSF that's prefectly fine.

The general theme from the FSF is that they want all code to be free and open source. Never once has the FSF said they want to own all code, nor have their actions given that impression.

They want to own all code in the GNU system for protection. Because legally they can provide the best defense for the license if they own copyright of the entire program, not just little snippets.

Nobody is forcing you to give your code to the FSF, nor are they demanding to own it all. All that's being said is if you want to give them a patch for their software that they maintain and fund, then you need to give them ownership. If you don't want to that's fine, FSF won't take your code and you can fork the software or provide patches that end users can apply.

This legal defense has worked for them in the past too. Cisco (linksys) was forced to open their firmware because of their use of gcc and binutils and glibc, not because of the linux kernel. How does wanting to be able to defend the GPL of the GNU system make them greedy?

[RealNC]

This isn't about greed, its about protection. First of all the FSF isn't trying to own ALL of the code. They just want to own all the code in the GNU system. If you don't want your code owned by FSF that's prefectly fine.

According to some opinions in this very thread, it is apparently not perfectly fine. It seems some people believe Apple is at fault here. I too believe it's perfectly fine. I'm against those (Michael?) who claim that Apple is now suddenly "blocking contributions", which is just BS. They're not blocking anything. Quite the contrary, they released everything they needed to release as GPL code.

[RealNC]

(Gah, stupid edit time limit.)

On another note, Michael seems to sometimes treat Phoronix as a dumping ground for his personal opinions that get read by lots of people, but without having to answer to anybody, not even his own readers. The title of this thread is a perfect example. And he doesn't bother to even post a reply to clarify what he meant in his title.

I would be amazed if others don't see anything wrong with that.

[admax88]

According to some opinions in this very thread, it is apparently not perfectly fine. It seems some people believe Apple is at fault here. I too believe it's perfectly fine. I'm against those (Michael?) who claim that Apple is now suddenly "blocking contributions", which is just BS. They're not blocking anything. Quite the contrary, they released everything they needed to release as GPL code.

I agree with you on that. Apple isn't blocking anything, they're just not agreeing to the copyright assignment that the FSF wants. I don't think that makes the FSF greedy, but I don't think that means Apple is blocking it.

Of course I would like to see the Objective-C code merge into GCC, I don't think its as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. I also think that Michael and other opinions here are way more vocal and enraged than either Apple or the FSF.

(Gah, stupid edit time limit.)

On another note, Michael seems to sometimes treat Phoronix as a dumping ground for his personal opinions that get read by lots of people, but without having to answer to anybody, not even his own readers. The title of this thread is a perfect example. And he doesn't bother to even post a reply to clarify what he meant in his title.

I would be amazed if others don't see anything wrong with that.

Definitely agree there. The quality of Phoronix articles is steadily declining I find. Most of the time now its just shock value headlines trying to get more ad dollars. The main reason I still visit the site is for the forums