Hi GCC Steering Committee!
Please consider accepting into GCC this new -- old? ;-) -- Algol 68
front end (awaiting conclusion of the ongoing technical review), and
appointing José as its maintainer. (At FOSDEM last weekend, we were
briefly discussing this contribution, and I offered to raise
Hi all,
This is a formal request from the GCC Steering Committee for the
LoongArch port merge permission.
If possible, I apply for my colleague Lulu Cheng and me to be LoongArch
port maintainers.
A technical review is underway and an agreement will be reached soon[1].
Thanks Richard and
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:22 AM, David Starner via Gcc wrote:
>
> Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> ...
>> Please, do not create a hostile environment for indipendent contributors.
>
> What do you mean by independent? If you're independently wealthy and
> don't need to work, you can avoid this. If you're
Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> And while this is IBM, the other US corporations with affiliations in
the Steering Committee are no better:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235777.html
> I can understand that some of you consider working for such corporations "a
> joy".
&g
On 4/20/21 7:42 AM, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of
Gebru.
To me, the members of the Steering Committee shouldn't be under such burden.
Since the vast maiority of them are, this turns to be a risk for people relying
on GCC.
But let me clear about this: I do NOT speak for anybody who share your trust
in the benevolence if US BigTech, wherev
> Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
> IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
> contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
> the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of these
> contributions to the FSF.
Yes, as
> You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
For those who aren't aware of it, this has been IBM's position for
many decades. It's not a new position. But they are unique in the
extremeness of their position on this, so generalizing this would be a
mistake.
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:21, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is
> highly problematic,
> > I'd like you to give a look at
rom: "David Brown"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC
> Steering Committee
>
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just
On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi GCC developers,
>
> just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
> problematic,
> I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> message over Linux MAINTAINERS
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pu
obey."
"When I hear the voice say,
'Now, listen to me, ' I will obey."
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 7:37 PM
> From: "Eric Botcazou"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: On US corporate influence over Free Soft
> Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation):
>
> "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work
> in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account
> as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
> Please remove you
Hi GCC developers,
just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
problematic,
I'd like you to give a look at this commit
message over Linux MAINTAINERS
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commi
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:28 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> Seeing the word "dysfunction" I don't remember using I want to clarify
> the non-openess which I intended to criticize. The SC is not "open" because:
> - it appoints itself (new members, that is) - in fact in theory it
> should be appointed
W, the glibc FSF stewards are analogous to the SC and pretty much all
of those points apply to them. My impression is that it's a symptom of
governance style of GNU projects (or maybe GNU *toolchain* projects due
to shared history) and not specifically anything to do with the steering
commi
On 4/6/21 12:27 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC. The case of the
>>> missing question I asked in 2019 also po
nk this is unfair to the steering committee and misrepresents
what it means to be a GNU project. That "gnu-stucture" document was
written by RMS a couple of months ago and doesn't represent how the
GNU project and its maintainers have worked for years. It seems to
have been a reac
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >
> > Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC. The case of the
> > missing question I asked in 2019 also points to that. This response
> > gives me no confidence t
Ian,
thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have
reached out. I do have a couple of comments though.
On 4/1/21 3:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I think you want the steering committee to issue a statement
I am not hearing what you are
saying. There doesn't seem to be much point to continuing.
I'll just reply to one minor point.
> Thus, I'm not naive enough to ignore the thousands way your employee
> can get huge advantages by having you in the GCC's Steering Committ
eir time, not by groups like the SC or the maintainers.
> > > Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was
> > > receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee.
> >
> > Do we know this as a fact?
>
> Ian wrote so
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Ian,
>
> with all respect wi
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2021 at 1:10 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Ian,
>
> with all respect wi
rations. But the only way to change that is to encourage
> companies that are *not* in the US to contribute too.
False: it's not the only way.
You can also put trustworthy and credible observers to protect the
interests of the global Free Software movement.
Stallman serving in the St
re US corporations. But the only way to
change that is to encourage companies that are *not* in the US to
contribute too.
> Except that the President of FSF (and Chief GNUissance himself) was
> receiving copy of all the communications of the Steering Committee.
Do we know this as a fact?
mainly a soft power that can influence development of
GCC by slowing down or fastening certain features, as you explained the
SC did in several occasions (the Nathan's libcody, the plugin framework
and many other that were too subtle to catch from outside the Steering
Committee).
We are all
;
As it clearly says on the steering committee page, appointments are
personal, not based on employer. One SC members just moved job but didn't
lose his SC position, because it's him and not his employer who is on the
committee.
> I don't understand this argument. If we remo
As we have expressed, the GCC Steering Committee doesn't micromanage
the development of GCC. The technical decisions are made by the
Release Managers and the various maintainers. But if you want to play
nationality bingo, let's play and see what we find, shall we?
The three GCC Releas
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:31 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> I'm still just one Italian hacker: all the huge imbalances that the
> removal of the only FSF and GNU member of the Steering Committee
> uncovered, are still there!
As far as I can tell, the imbalances you refer to are
If you have nothing to contribute except these diatribes, please give it a
rest.
If you really think "being American" is a bigger image problem than "being
RMS" then you are part of the problem here.
t properly.
>
> This is free software. If you want to make it better, then make it
> better. [...] So prove me wrong. Do the work.
Well Ian, I'm glad and honoured to be appointed as a new member of
the GCC Steering Committee [0]!!! :-D
But now what?
I'm still just one Italian h
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Oh well, sure, but luckily the solution is just as fast and easy as
> it was to remove RMS: pick just one person for each nationality and
> remove the others.
Why nationalities? That strikes me as a rather specific view focusing on
one of many attributes
t it is not perfect. It
has many problems. Lack of contributor diversity is one of them. If
I knew how to fix that problem, I would work to fix it. I personally
do not believe that the membership of the steering committee is a
significant cause of that problem. But I could be mistaken. So prov
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 at 2:06 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Jonathan Wakely"
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> ever
ions (with long term ties
> > with the USA DoD [5]) are kicking out of the GCC Steering Committee
> > their only connection with both the FSF and the GNU project.
>
> If that's what you think happened, you've not been paying attention to
> this thread.
...I wrote suc
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 11:06, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But from outside your "cultural bubble", we all see that a bunch of
> highly controversial [3][4] US corporations (with long term ties with
> the USA DoD [5]) are kicking out of the GCC Steering Committee their
> only connec
d Meneide"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: RMS removed from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hello Thomas, Jonathan, David, Nathan Jean and... everybody. :-)
>
>
> I'm sorry for this long mail that rivals with the original Nathan's
> request, but I wanted
tion based on power (that's is expressed and
enforced through wealth and giustified through "economics" and
clearly captured by `git log`s).
But from outside your "cultural bubble", we all see that a bunch of
highly controversial [3][4] US corporations (with long term ties
> If RMS had ever done the same (pretty unlikely, Fortran isnt't his
> thing), I would have done the same without thinking twice about it.
I agree with that sentiment. The fact that somebody has a certain
role doesn't necessarily mean that the question is asked with that hat
on: it may be nothing
On 01.04.21 22:33, Joseph Myers wrote:
And while in that case RMS probably learned of modules and libcody through
the SC mailing list, in general he has this habit of asking GNU package
developers random questions related to their packages.
I've been asked a few questions about gfortran by ra
On 4/1/21 10:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
RMS once asked me about the status of fused multiply-add support in glibc.
I don't know why. He wasn't asking for any changes or objecting to
anything the glibc maintainers had done. I'd hope that future Chief
GNUisances won't try to get involved in detai
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> > 2) Last year, I asked for libcody to be added as a subcomponent, with
> > its Apachev2 license intact. AFAICT RMS was involved in that licensing
> > discussion, /for which I never received a response/. He was not at the
> > FSF then, so he
t; the dissolution of the SC, replacing it with a more open, functional and
> inclusive body (which includes, nothing).
>
> nathan
>
> FWIW, I am surprised that you, the SC, chose to respond only to the
> mailing list, and not CC me, the original complainant, of your decision.
&
On 3/31/21 2:27 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
[I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
lost. I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
based on his role in the GNU Project, though
On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 17:23 +0200, Andrea G. Monaco wrote:
>
> I strongly disagree with the removal of Dr. Stallman from the
> Steering
> Committee.
RMS was not removed from the GCC Steering Committee; his name was
removed from the *web page* of the steering committee.
Based on th
On April 1, 2021 5:23:25 PM GMT+02:00, "Andrea G. Monaco"
wrote:
>
>I strongly disagree with the removal of Dr. Stallman from the Steering
>Committee.
>
>Not only RMS wrote the GCC initially, but I think he is the best person
>by far who can guarantee the values of f
I strongly disagree with the removal of Dr. Stallman from the Steering
Committee.
Not only RMS wrote the GCC initially, but I think he is the best person
by far who can guarantee the values of free software, with unmatched
integrity and lucidity.
That's especially important in the SC,
gt;> contribute something that does not match the culture or interests you
>> represent.
>
>
>
> Everybody is welcome to send patches for GCC. The steering committee doesn't
> decide what people work on, and they don't approve patches.
I don't think "the
gt;
Everybody is welcome to send patches for GCC. The steering committee
doesn't decide what people work on, and they don't approve patches.
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> Hi David, thanks for sharing!
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:27:29 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
>> based on his role in the GNU Project [...]
>> we are removing him from
On 2021-03-31 17:04, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hi Jeff,
thanks for fixing your affiliation, but let me note that it doesn't
change a dime for the geopolitical-diversity issue that affects GCC
since before RMS joined the Steering Committee.
Not to argue counter to the observation that the
Hi Jeff,
thanks for fixing your affiliation, but let me note that it doesn't
change a dime for the geopolitical-diversity issue that affects GCC
since before RMS joined the Steering Committee.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:35:36 -0600 Jeff Law wrote:
> > To me, and to billions of people, t
On 3/31/2021 5:11 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
10 out of 13 members of the GCC steering committee work either for
American corporations (8), their subsidiaries (1) or an American
University (1) recently covered by the press in India [3].
Also, 4 of these work for the same corporation (IBM / Red
Hi David, thanks for sharing!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:27:29 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
> based on his role in the GNU Project [...]
> we are removing him from the page.
I have to admit that I had never carefully obs
[I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
lost. I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
of the Steering Committee has
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:44 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> > I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
> > general questions.
> >
> > 1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members,
> >
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 2:56 AM
> From: "David Malcolm"
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
&
ance "or his delegates").
While that is true in a formal sense it's not true in a practical
sense. In practice the steering committee appoints its own members.
That said I think it would be entirely reasonable to use a different
structure. I just don't know what it would be.
On March 31, 2021 5:23:09 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer
>wrote:
>>
>> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>>
>> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm
>aware of.
>>
>> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensin
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware
> > of.
>
> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would
> not have happened naturally. Someone had to step i
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:18 +0200, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
[...snip...]
> As for the "safe spaces" phase, this is about eliminating anything
> and
> everything that could emotionally troubling students. This assumes a
> high
> degree of fragility among western students. I work as a jou
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 1:28 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm a bit in
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
> general questions.
>
> 1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members,
> possibly different ones depending on which level of the organization
I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
general questions.
1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members, possibly
different ones depending on which level of the organization you're in?
2. Is there a formal process for receiving claims of in
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:34 PM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 14:30, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But people, groups and incentives changes.
> Stallman does not.
Well, he's not immortal. Are you really suggesting that his crowning
achievement (the free software movement and copyleft) is actually not
sustainable, and only works if he's watchi
* David Edelsohn via Gcc:
> Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware of.
What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would
not have happened naturally. Someone had to step in and delay the
plugin framework feature until the licensing changes wer
mately I do not expect this specific issue to occur in a
hypothetical GCC lead by a Stallman-less Steering Comittee.
But I DO expect that, in the long run, a Stallman-less Steering
Comittee might do something not aligned with the long-term
interests of Free Software, abusing my trust again.
May
Hi Martin,
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:53:20 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their eyes and
> >> ears and ignore mistreatmen
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > >
> > > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> > > people are discussing here.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >
> > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> > people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with
> > calling for the removal of t
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 13:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents
> all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance structure (because
> the "SC" is in fact appointed by the Chief GNUisance "or his delegates").
The SC was appointed
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 12:36, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Again, it isn't about this one or two incidents. I am sure someone can
> find a way to explained it away by saying people simply misunderstood
> his intentions or that no law was broken. But it is about a pattern of
> behavior that shows RMS crea
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with
> calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software
> Foundation and calling for Richard M
ide to contribute your port upstream, it
> > will be safe with us, regardless of who will or will not be on the
> > steering committee
>
> When I joined the Harvey project they were all fun and welcoming.
> When I asked how and where to write my copyright statement, I was
> a
To me (not being a contributor) this is the best contribution to the
discussion so far.
Am 30.03.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Maksim Fomin via Gcc:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I would rather not have to write this email. Like many deve
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their eyes and ears
>> and ignore mistreatment when they are not the victims and when their
>> friend or their favorite public fig
Dear Alfred and Alexandre,
It seems that neither of you would like to offer any evidence
that counteracts what I have already been given by multiple
individuals. Furthermore,
Alexandre:
> A misguided person thought that reciprocating the doxxing against RMS
> was a good way to defend him. I
I ("new moderator") won't recount what happened, it is neither here,
or there, but Mark is presenting a very biased view of what occured,
and also one of the reasons why he no longer is a moderator.
The claims about doxxing, etc, are entierly untrue and unfounded.
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> Taking the correction into account
*nod*
> What you've presented here is your word ("This
> accusation is outright false, beyond any possible doubt."),
True, I didn't claim to be offering evidence, and that didn't seem
necessary since all the su
Dear Alexandre,
As stated here, shortly after I sent my message
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235197.html):
> Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
> it, but this paragraph:
>
> > My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> > fact
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal reasons.
This accusation is outright false, beyond any po
ot;
> *To:* "Christopher Dimech"
> *Cc:* "Joseph Myers" , "GCC Development" <
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Nathan Sidwell"
> *Subject:* Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sorry for the confusion, but was this response directed to
Giacomo wrote:
>Stallman cannot betray Free Software AND get away with it.
>So to me (and to many others) Stallman is a sort of a living warranty.
That's fine. He doesn't need to be in the GCC SC to do that.
He can continue to provide guidance on the spirit of Free Software
without having an SC p
non-free license. If you decide to contribute your port upstream, it
> > will be safe with us, regardless of who will or will not be on the
> > steering committee
The GCC SC doesn't have the power to relicense GCC; that lies with the
FSF. We can correct clear licensing mista
d and certainly not to a
> non-free license. If you decide to contribute your port upstream, it
> will be safe with us, regardless of who will or will not be on the
> steering committee
When I joined the Harvey project they were all fun and welcoming.
When I asked how and where to write my copy
I encourage everyone to please try to keep this discussion focused on GCC.
If there is a message that is completely unrelated to GCC, I encourage
not responding, or responding off-list.
Thanks.
Ian
On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
From: "Martin Jambor"
To: "Giacomo Tesio"
Cc: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giaco
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 5:45 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, JeanHeyd Men
Dear Giacomo,
Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
it, but this paragraph:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> So, it boils down to this for me: either GCC is a place where all
> contributions are welcome, or GCC is a place of hypocrisy, where
> contributions are welcome except when Stallman (or someone else in a
> position of power) lobbies a non
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Martin Jambor"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
problem to attract new talents.
>
> I could understand such statement if he had committed actual crimes,
> was legally persecuted, processed and condemned like Reiser.
>
> But while I try, I cannot really understand why you think that his name
> in the Steering Committee
lian I'm having a hard time trying to follow your reasoning
> about Stallman being a problem to attract new talents.
>
> I could understand such statement if he had committed actual crimes,
> was legally persecuted, processed and condemned like Reiser.
>
> But while I try, I can
l stay free as in freedom, as a common good for the
> whole humanity.
>
> As of today, GPLv3 is the legal tool that best suit this goal.
> I don't think it's perfect in this regards, but that's another story.
Nobody suggested that GCC would be relicensed and certainly no
> 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise -
> they are deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his
> views to look immoral).
I would like to suggest that this discussion will go better without
making accusations that people are "deliberately" doing something.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I would rather not have to write this email. Like many developers, I just want
> to write code. Right now we’re working towards the GCC 11 release. I thought
> about deferring this email. But there’s neve
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 1:16 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021
y, I cannot really understand why you think that his name
in the Steering Committee would drive away people from contributing GCC
I ported GCC to Plan 9 because I want a free compiler suite for my OS.
Porting CLANG would have been easier (to some extent) BUT my choice was
political and Stallman in
1 - 100 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
