> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 4:24 AM > From: "Richard Biener via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > To: "Jason Merrill" <ja...@redhat.com> > Cc: "Thomas Koenig" <tkoe...@netcologne.de>, "gcc mailing list" > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > On April 15, 2021 6:02:50 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:08 AM Richard Biener via Gcc > ><gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc > ><gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> >N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC > >> >On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de> > >> >wrote: > >> >> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not > >> >> happen, I can guarantee you that. > >> > > >> >This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows > >> >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But > >I'm > >> >not going to press for reasons. > >> > >> Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't > >FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org > >DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name. > > > >It seems wrong to call such a scenario a fork. If someone wanted to > >fork GCC they are free to do so, but changing the relationship with > >GNU/FSF is not a fork, as there would continue to be one primary > >source repository.
Correct, but whatever happens, the association with RMS will remain. Thusly the impasse is not going away. A fork would work, but then the secessionists' intention is to carry on with the Gcc tag, because of its respected position in the world of science and technology. > True. That's definitely better communication. > > Richard. > > >Jason > >
