From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0932C3850408; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 08:20:45 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0932C3850408 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 08:20:44 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 7.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 08:20:45 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D78352 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13) > If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws > specifically are getting in the way here, that could be helpful. I won my > election to the New Hampshire State Legislature so if there's any > legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in = NH, > I'd love to know how to write it. I assume the issue is that Apple's patches are GPLv2 and GCC is GPLv3+, and also that FSF wants copyright assignments for patches to GCC (which is FSF policy, not law). Passing laws in NH to allow us to ignore the copyright holder's licence ter= ms and relicense them as we want would probably violate international conventi= ons, and would not help in other jurisdictions.=