From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5524 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 20:20:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 5515 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 20:20:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from web37601.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO web37601.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.87.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:20:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 56210 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jul 2010 20:20:46 -0000 Message-ID: <131999.55205.qm@web37601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.210.75.84] by web37601.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:20:45 PDT Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:20:00 -0000 From: Brian Makin Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 >On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: >>> Steven Bosscher wrote: >>> >>>>> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we >>>>> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal >>>consequences, >>>>> they put us in this messy situation, they deal with it. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that escalating the issue is more helpful. GCC is not >>>> the only project with this problem. >>> >>> Sadly, at this point, RMS is simply taking the position that this is not >>> a problem worth solving. >> >> Ah, how the "free" in Free Software Foundation takes a whole different >> meaning when it comes to actual freedom... > >Ha! Sounds like time to overturn the (benevolent?) dictator! > >Richard. Or to move to a better foundation? It seems to me that gcc has had various issues for various reasons for quite a while now. RMS is all for tightly controller yet freely distributable software. Maybe it's time to throw more effort behind something like LLVM?