Hi - > > > I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded > > > compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on > > > that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU > > > toolchain without affecting its core governance. > > > > What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the > > LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being > > redirected to its own managed services infrastructure? > > This current proposal is limited to infrastructure, which has ever-growing > needs.
I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator. > Do you think the current proposal is not an upgrade to what we > currently have? I don't know. I am not under the impression that infrastructure is holding back development on any of these projects. Further, I suspect that if the communities were given a choice to direct the sponsors' generous donations toward new development type work, they may well prefer that. Is that possibility on offer? - FChE
