GCC association with the FSF

GCC association with the FSF

[Didier Kryn]

Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> immediately follow. 

    Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a
liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to
a free software project.

    But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being
called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald
Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of
employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social
networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS.

    "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of
employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because
s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology.

    I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be
clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean
the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on
this list.

    Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where
hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get
the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed
amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is
one good reason to keep away.

> ... no one can
> be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.

    It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have
expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no
one is allowed to"?

    What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are
standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO?  POSIX?  IEEE? Sorry
for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~:

Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit :
> Hello there
>
> As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
> very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
> exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
> the GCC project.

    I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the
same planet as you. Sorry but this is just plain intolerance.

    The root of the cabal is there:  intolerance. The arguments about
the behaviour of RMS or the mere fact that his name appears on the web
page are mostly given (conciously or not) to hide the actual mobile.

--     Didier

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Frosku]

On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> > will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> > immediately follow. 
>
> Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a
> liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to
> a free software project.

He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which is
testament to the benefits of open dialogue. By having discussions and
arguing points, we can convince people that they are wrong. By shunning them,
we do nothing to change their views and everything to make them believe we
don't have any real arguments.

As distasteful as I find such a view, I don't think that anybody should be
banished for polite society for thoughtcrimes. We can judge people for their
actions, but there's no evidence or even suggestion that he has ever harmed
a child.

> But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being
> called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald
> Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of
> employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social
> networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS.
>
> "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of
> employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because
> s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology.

I'm not 100% convinced by this. RMS has made some enemies in the corporate
space who probably aren't too unhappy to see this division in our community
over him.

> I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be
> clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean
> the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on
> this list.
>
> Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where
> hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get
> the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed
> amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is
> one good reason to keep away.
>
> > ... no one can
> > be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> > modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> > FOSS community.
>
> It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have
> expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no
> one is allowed to"?

I'm in doubt that anyone can claim to speak for the diaspora of ideas and
principles that is the free software community. We have participants from
all corners of the globe, all religions, all political stances. It would
probably be hard to find unanimous agreement among us on anything, other
than perhaps that free software is a desirable thing.

> What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are
> standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO? POSIX? IEEE? Sorry
> for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~:
>
> Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit :
> > Hello there
> >
> > As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
> > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
> > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
> > the GCC project.
>
> I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the
> same planet as you. Sorry but this is just plain intolerance.
>
> The root of the cabal is there: intolerance. The arguments about
> the behaviour of RMS or the mere fact that his name appears on the web
> page are mostly given (conciously or not) to hide the actual mobile.

Very well summarized, Didier. This is an authoritarian attempt to clamp down on
freedom of thought which is unfortunately being swallowed whole by people who
spend the rest of their time fighting for it. If it is not possible for us -- a
global community representing not only the entire spectrum of American politics
and values, but of global politics and values -- to agree to disagree, then we
are doomed to failure.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:07 AM
> From: "Frosku" <frosku@frosku.com>
> To: "Didier Kryn" <kryn@in2p3.fr>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> > > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> > > will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> > > immediately follow. 
> >
> > Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a
> > liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to
> > a free software project.
> 
> He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which is
> testament to the benefits of open dialogue. By having discussions and
> arguing points, we can convince people that they are wrong. By shunning them,
> we do nothing to change their views and everything to make them believe we
> don't have any real arguments.
> 
> As distasteful as I find such a view, I don't think that anybody should be
> banished for polite society for thoughtcrimes. We can judge people for their
> actions, but there's no evidence or even suggestion that he has ever harmed
> a child.
> 
> > But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being
> > called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald
> > Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of
> > employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social
> > networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS.
> >
> > "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of
> > employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because
> > s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology.
> 
> I'm not 100% convinced by this. RMS has made some enemies in the corporate
> space who probably aren't too unhappy to see this division in our community
> over him.
> 
> > I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be
> > clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean
> > the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on
> > this list.
> >
> > Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where
> > hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get
> > the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed
> > amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is
> > one good reason to keep away.
> >
> > > ... no one can
> > > be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> > > modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> > > FOSS community.
> >
> > It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have
> > expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no
> > one is allowed to"?
> 
> I'm in doubt that anyone can claim to speak for the diaspora of ideas and
> principles that is the free software community. We have participants from
> all corners of the globe, all religions, all political stances. It would
> probably be hard to find unanimous agreement among us on anything, other
> than perhaps that free software is a desirable thing.

The free software community is much similar to India.  A conscious chaos
where you can't teach discipline.  People will feel home sick if there is
too much order.

People are trying to put a western template, but the first freedom is to be
able to work for any purpose.  Using free software even for genocide if you
want.  We should not demand people  to fit into another format which is not
theirs.  The free software movement is too complex and too multi-dimensional 
multi-ethnical - everything multi-.

The free software movement needs a very organic leadership, and not a synthetic
leadership that drops there because they have won some argument with somebody
else.  People have to understand that nation is just an idea, not some god giving
thing.  Even the poorest and in the remotest place in the world, even there
one can get to use and adapt free software as he wishes.   
 
> > What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are
> > standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO? POSIX? IEEE? Sorry
> > for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~:
> >
> > Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit :
> > > Hello there
> > >
> > > As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
> > > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
> > > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
> > > the GCC project.
> >
> > I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the
> > same planet as you. Sorry but this is just plain intolerance.
> >
> > The root of the cabal is there: intolerance. The arguments about
> > the behaviour of RMS or the mere fact that his name appears on the web
> > page are mostly given (conciously or not) to hide the actual mobile.
> 
> Very well summarized, Didier. This is an authoritarian attempt to clamp down on
> freedom of thought which is unfortunately being swallowed whole by people who
> spend the rest of their time fighting for it. If it is not possible for us -- a
> global community representing not only the entire spectrum of American politics
> and values, but of global politics and values -- to agree to disagree, then we
> are doomed to failure.
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:15 Christopher Dimech via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

>
> The free software community is much similar to India.  A conscious chaos
> where you can't teach discipline.  People will feel home sick if there is
> too much order.
>
> People are trying to put a western template, but the first freedom is to be
> able to work for any purpose.  Using free software even for genocide if you
> want.  We should not demand people  to fit into another format which is not
> theirs.  The free software movement is too complex and too
> multi-dimensional
> multi-ethnical - everything multi-.
>
> The free software movement needs a very organic leadership, and not a
> synthetic
> leadership that drops there because they have won some argument with
> somebody
> else.  People have to understand that nation is just an idea, not some god
> giving
> thing.  Even the poorest and in the remotest place in the world, even there
> one can get to use and adapt free software as he wishes.
>


Would you PLEASE take these abstract musings about Free Software somewhere
else, like gnu-misc-discuss, so we can discuss GCC, not your bullshit?

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 14:07 +0100, Frosku wrote:
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters
> > > of the
> > > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by
> > > a
> > > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents,
> > > and
> > > will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies
> > > will
> > > immediately follow. 
> > 
> > Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a
> > liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in
> > some to
> > a free software project.
> 
> He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which
> is
> testament to the benefits of open dialogue. 

Wow.  Just... wow.

I've been trying to ignore this thread for the sake of my mental health
- it's been going on for 2 weeks now - but I feel I have to speak up
about how wrong-headed the above seems to me.

I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of
the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
20 years, has to be patiently coached in why pedophilia is bad.  Most
reasonable people would run a mile from such an environment.  Think of
what the FSF could have achieved if RMS hadn't driven away all but the
most patient and dedicated people, and the effort exhausted by those
that remain on enabling [1] him to continue in his "leadership" role.

At one time, RMS was a hero and inspiration to me; I remember cutting
out newspaper articles about him when I was in school, and I own a copy
of his book, which he signed for me.  However, that book has been in my
attic for a while now, gathering dust, which seems symbolic to me.

I hope that the FSF can be saved; it would be deeply damaging to
software freedom for it to finish imploding.  It would also be very
inconvenient for those of us trying to improve GCC.

For those with ears to listen, Luis Villa posted this excellent
article, with plenty of ideas on how to save the FSF:
  https://lu.is/blog/2021/04/07/values-centered-npos-with-kmaher/
which I'll quote part of here:

"Many in the GNU and FSF communities seem to worry that moving past RMS
somehow means abandoning software freedom, which should not be the
case. If anything, this should be an opportunity to re-commit to
software freedom - in a way that is relevant and actionable given the
state of the software industry in 2021."

In the meantime, I don't know what GCC should do, but I feel like I
need to go for a walk in the woods to clear my head, away from a
keyboard, rather than spending any more of my weekend stressing about
the project.

I hope this is constructive.  These are my opinions, and not
necessarily those of my employer - though Red Hat has stated that it is
"appalled" at RMS's return to the FSF board [2], and part of my job is
to care about the future of GCC.

Dave

[1] see e.g. https://www.healthline.com/health/enabler
[2] https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-statement-about-richard-stallmans-return-free-software-foundation-board

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.

GCC is part of the GNU project.

RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.

RMS is also founder of the FSF.

The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project.

The FSF later expanded its activities to other campaigns, but supporting
the GNU project remains a very important focus of FSF's activities.

However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project.  That appears
to be a very common misperception.

The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
independent (unincorporated) organization, with its own separate and
independent governance structure.


The conversation has supposedly moved on from being centered on the
(very indirect) relationship with RMS to being centered around the
(even more indirect) relationship with the FSF.

The trigger for the present movements seems to be RMS's reappointment to
the board of directors of the FSF.

That makes no sense to me.

RMS's closest roles regarding GCC have been of initial developer, leader
of the project that GCC belongs in, and occasional participant in
discussions among the GCC SC, and none of this has changed recently.

What is the relevance of his reappointment to the board of a separate
organization he's founded, long participated in, and presided for most
of its history, and that has supported both the GNU project at large and
the GNU toolchain specifically, in ways that haven't changed at all, not
when he resigned from the board, not when he was reappointed?!?

Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of
> the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
> my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
> 20 years, has to be patiently coached in why pedophilia is bad.

AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you sold
your services assigns *their* copyrights to.

As to the loaded claims you make, that's completely off topic IMHO, but
since you brought it up, I'll assume you won't mind if I point out that
pedophilia is a misnomer, and mostly unrelated with things RMS actually
wrote and wondered about.


There's a different term that applies to sexually mature non-adults, and
when it comes to them, issues are a lot less clear-cut than you imply.
Treating conversations about them as taboos or unquestionable truths
contribute to keeping things nebulous, problematic, and distant from
what science actually has to say about teen sexuality.

Think of burning people at the stake over disputing then-prevalent
flat-earth beliefs, think of the efforts to "cure" Alan Turing, and
realize how questioning prevalent but unfounded beliefs can both imperil
the person who does the questioning, and matter for the advancement of
science and of civilization.


As to the tiny bit of speculation that may have had to do with actual
sexually-immature children, I wonder what science you could share with
us in support of what you seem to believe anyone ought to just accept
unquestioningly, and how it was that you came to believe it yourself.

At the risk of having my words twisted and of being mislabeled like RMS,
I, as a caring parent who had to wonder and think these issues through
long ago, wonder how you went or would go about explaining to e.g. an
inquisitive and curious 4 year-old that hugging, kissing, caressing hair
and such pleasant things are good and desirable, as long as the people
engaging in it welcome it, but that certain other pleasant contacts,
that they are not mature enough to distinguish from the acceptable ones,
are intolerable and harmful, even when everyone involved welcomes it.

Note I'm not disputing the difference nor the harm, though I haven't
seen the science that supports it.  But I'd welcome it, and I wonder how
to do that without (i) forcing the child to accept an argument of
authority (that tends to kill curiosity and scientific pursuit), (ii)
getting the child too interested too early (prohibited stuff tends to
draw attention :-), nor (iii) instilling feelings of inappropriateness
or inadequacy that could harm their future sexual life.


This is way off topic, so feel free to respond without copying the list.
I did copy the list because, once the belief that some positions should
be held by default and unquestionably is presented as an argument to
condemn someone, it's just fair to present an opposite argument
involving questioning and pondering on the same issue.


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader 
>> of
>> the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
>> my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
>> 20 years, has to be patiently coached in why pedophilia is bad.
> 
> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you 
> sold
> your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
> 

That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is very 
much *my* decision.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 20:19 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

>
> However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project.  That appears
> to be a very common misperception.
>

> The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
> guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
> independent (unincorporated) organization, with its own separate and
> independent governance structure.
>

"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <gnu@gnu.org> <gnu@gnu.org>.
There are also other ways to contact <https://www.gnu.org/contact/> the
FSF."

That's the footer of ... www.gnu.org and the "other ways to contact" link
goes to www.gnu.org/contact

The page header has a "Join the FSF" button, and the page's subtitle is
"Supported by the Free Software Foundation
<https://www.gnu.org/#mission-statement>"  where the link goes to
www.gnu.org again (not to fsf.org).

It's pretty confusing to outsiders.

The governance structure of the FSF is pretty opaque to me, and I've been
involved for close to 20 years. Who are the "voting members" of the FSF?
The governance structure of GNU is described at
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html but apart from the names of the
authors, only one individual is named on the page (you know who).



>
> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?
>

So "you didn't complain about the FSF in 2019, why do you have a problem
with them now?" Really? OK ...

There is a perception that GCC's link to both GNU and the FSF is harmful to
GCC's reputation. The unclear (to outsiders) relationship between GCC, GNU
and FSF may be to blame, but telling somebody that their perception is just
because they are confused doesn't necessarily help.

Would GCC leaving the GNU project but not removing links to the FSF really
mean much, when the FSF has just welcomed RMS back? And when the FSF still
sponsors the GNU project, which RMS has been clear he still leads whether
or not he's in the FSF? Can you really not see why people who want to
remove links to RMS/GNU might also think that remaining linked to the FSF
is a problem, given the FSF's strong links to GNU and renewed link to RMS?
And if somebody didn't think being linked to the FSF was a problem a month
ago, can you really not see why they might think it is a problem now, after
RMS rejoined the FSF?

Finally, the FSF seems to be imploding. I don't want GCC to suffer as a
result of that.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's pretty confusing to outsiders.

It is indeed.  Up to 2004 or so, I'm told, the FSF didn't even have its
own separate web site.  Before 2019, it never seemed terribly important
to clear that up, but the confusion of concerns has always bugged me.

> The governance structure of the FSF is pretty opaque to me

The bylaws have always been public.

> Who are the "voting members" of the FSF?

Why are the couple of former directors who retained voting rights so
relevant now?  If you actually look at the governance structure in the
bylaws, you'll see that it's Directors and the Executive Director who
really run the show, and they can take pretty much any action that
voting members can.


> There is a perception that GCC's link to both GNU and the FSF is harmful to
> GCC's reputation.

But nothing changed in GNU recently, right?

FSF is one of the organizations that supports GNU, and the subject is
about separating from the FSF alone.

That makes zero sense to me, unless I factor in the common confusion
between FSF and GNU.


To me, GCC (GNU Toolchain) separating from the FSF would imply
terminating the fiscal sponsorship agreement that's in place as part of
the "Working Together for Free Software" program, that encompasses the
GNU Toolchain fund.

I could imagine that some convoluted reasoning might connect RMS's
reappointment to the FSF board to a wish to terminate that relationship,
that's the only one that exists between the FSF and (some
representatives of) the GNU Toolchain.  But I don't think that's what
you're getting at; I don't even know whether you knew about this
relationship.


As for GNU, the most relevant relationship for GCC, the recent FSF board
membership change doesn't change GNU at all, so any attempt to connect
this relationship with the FSF board appointment is confused at best.


As for public perception, we've seen how most people have seen through
the lies in the hate letter, so that motivation has become pretty weak,
and promoting those lies doesn't seem to be doing the movement or the
people propagating them any good.

I can get that some people, yourself included, may have legitimate
issues with RMS's leadership of the movement and of the project, that
are separate from the lies that some have come to believe, and are
mistaking as reasons for a split, and that are even more unrelated with
his reappointment to the FSF board.

Of course, nobody's trying to force you to keep on contributing to a
project you don't wish to contribute to any more.  Now, if your
intentions are honest, it would be kind of you to spell out your own
personal reasons to wish to fork GCC away from all things RMS, even
while you don't mind if GCC were to keep on merging your contributions
to the fork.

I don't expect to be able to overcome your, erhm, reverse veneration, so
to speak, but I trust you wish to do what you believe to be best for the
Free Software movement.

Alas, the timing and the motivations of other participants in this
conversation suggest your reasons have something to do with the false
accusations that coincided with these separation movements, and those
false accusations aren't doing good, not for the movement, not for those
pushing them; seeming to endorse them would color you intolerant for
some, and vindictive for others.

Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons.  What I
don't recall seeing is the actual issue.  Pardon me if I missed it; I
gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
sidestepped it, which tells me I don't really know what it is.  If you
could point to it in the archives, or restate it, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com> wrote:

> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:

>> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
>> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.

> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is
> very much *my* decision.

Interesting...  I made my statement above because I couldn't find
David's assignment on file.  This told me he's covered by Red Hat's
assignment, which supported my statement.

Now, I can't find an assignment on file for you either.
What gives?


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 4/11/21 2:51 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
> some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
> 
> GCC is part of the GNU project.
> 
> RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
> 
> RMS is also founder of the FSF.
> 
> The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project.
> 
> The FSF later expanded its activities to other campaigns, but supporting
> the GNU project remains a very important focus of FSF's activities.
> 
> However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project.  That appears
> to be a very common misperception.
> 
> The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
> guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
> independent (unincorporated) organization, with its own separate and
> independent governance structure.
> 
> 
> The conversation has supposedly moved on from being centered on the
> (very indirect) relationship with RMS to being centered around the
> (even more indirect) relationship with the FSF.
> 
> The trigger for the present movements seems to be RMS's reappointment to
> the board of directors of the FSF.
> 
> That makes no sense to me
> 
> RMS's closest roles regarding GCC have been of initial developer, leader
> of the project that GCC belongs in, and occasional participant in
> discussions among the GCC SC, and none of this has changed recently.
> 
> What is the relevance of his reappointment to the board of a separate
> organization he's founded, long participated in, and presided for most
> of its history, and that has supported both the GNU project at large and
> the GNU toolchain specifically, in ways that haven't changed at all, not
> when he resigned from the board, not when he was reappointed?!?
> 
> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?

I gave them in my initial email.  You can go find them in the archive.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
>> 
>> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
>> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.

>> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is
>> very much *my* decision.

> Interesting...  I made my statement above because I couldn't find
> David's assignment on file.  This told me he's covered by Red Hat's
> assignment, which supported my statement.

> Now, I can't find an assignment on file for you either.
> What gives?

1) I *should* have an assignment on file with the FSF (I certainly have 
an email trail in my archives on the matter that indicated such, 
however..). The paperwork was initiated before I started at Red Hat, my 
sense of the process was it's a disorganized shit show at the FSF for 
processing these things (or was at the time so who knows, maybe it's 
better now?, but I suspect not...for fairly obvious reasons) and I 
didn't actively pursue confirmation that everything was fully set, 
because I had RH's blanket assignment to operate under and I didn't have 
any expectation I'd need to deal with a separate assignment any time 
soon at that point for work on libstdc++.

2) So, I have done my libstdc++ work to date under RH's assignment to 
the FSF. Before that happened, however, I did work as a Red Hat employee 
to bring what was a the time, Intel's standalone C++ parallel algorithms 
implementation into a state where it could be contributed to libstdc++ 
as Intel had offered. Intel *also* offered the implementation to libc++. 
The work I did to bring the implementation in line with the requirements 
for being part of the standard library is largely the same between 
libstdc++ and libc++, and it was decided that we'd contribute the work 
to the LLVM project and relicense under those terms. Then I'd contribute 
*that* relicensed work to libstdc++. So, to this point, no work had been 
done in the libstdc++ codebase, just Intel's upstream repo.

This required Intel's lawyers to get a copyright assignment from me. 
This in turn required me to talk to Red Hat's lawyers. Where upon I 
learned, as long as Red Hat employees' work is done under an approved 
open source/free software license, Red Hat does not assert ownership 
over the work. As a result, Red Hat confirmed they had no involvement in 
relicensing the work that they had paid for.

This is not a common situation with corporate work, I grant you. But it 
is very much the case with Red Hat's employee contributions that Red Hat 
does not itself assert ownership of the work they do. This means, in 
particular, that it is the decision of the Red Hat folks who work on GCC 
to continue doing so under the current terms, or, as Jonathan has 
indicated, to not do it under those terms.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>
> Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons.  What I
> don't recall seeing is the actual issue.  Pardon me if I missed it; I
> gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
> sidestepped it, which tells me I don't really know what it is.  If you
> could point to it in the archives, or restate it, I'd appreciate it.
>

Here you go:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html

GNU seems to have become a cult of personality. FSF seems to be a sinking
ship.

I don't think it benefits GCC to be linked to them. I think GCC would do
better without those links.

The mail linked above was quoted in the first mail in this sub-thread, when
Mark changed the Subject:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235340.html

I also agree with the sentiments in
https://wingolog.org/archives/2021/03/25/here-we-go-again

I said that the only benefit I see for GCC is the DNS records for
gcc.gnu.org and apart from Mark suggesting that a single copyright holder
is an advantage (which I am not convinced about) the only arguments put
forward have been variations on:

- this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
or FSF)

- RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be trusted or
don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true and don't see this
as an advantage)

- RMS doesn't get involved in GCC anyway, there's no reason to disassociate
from him (still doesnt tell me what benefit there is, and ignores
perception problems caused by that association)

- it is not wise to disrespect the GNU Father (rambling troll who is listed
as a GNU maintainer despite contributing no code, further devaluing the
whole project)

So no benefits that I can see. But lots of cult-like behaviour that helped
me make up my mind.

If the GNU project and the FSF want to keep RMS, fine, they can have him
(if you check you'll find I haven't signed the GitHub letter). But they
can't tell me to be happy about it and they can't tell me where to
contribute my code.

If the GNU project wants to pull my code from a fork, without my copyright
assignment, I will consider that a small victory because it will mean
they're willing to accept the contributions without owning the copyright.
I'd like that.

Anybody is welcome to use my code subject to its licence terms. But that
doesn't mean they're welcome to own it or call it theirs. Assigning my
copyright is my choice (and w.r.t what you said to Dave about "selling our
services" ... a cheap shot which assumes we aren't contributing under
personal assignments to the FSF, and assumes we have no choice to work
elsewhere if we don't like the terms).

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-11 16:29, Thomas Rodgers wrote:

> On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> 
> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.

>> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is
>> very much *my* decision.

> Interesting...  I made my statement above because I couldn't find
> David's assignment on file.  This told me he's covered by Red Hat's
> assignment, which supported my statement.

> Now, I can't find an assignment on file for you either.
> What gives?

1) I *should* have an assignment on file with the FSF (I certainly have 
an email trail in my archives on the matter that indicated such, 
however..). The paperwork was initiated before I started at Red Hat, my 
sense of the process was it's a disorganized shit show at the FSF for 
processing these things (or was at the time so who knows, maybe it's 
better now?, but I suspect not...for fairly obvious reasons) and I 
didn't actively pursue confirmation that everything was fully set, 
because I had RH's blanket assignment to operate under and I didn't have 
any expectation I'd need to deal with a separate assignment any time 
soon at that point for work on libstdc++.

2) So, I have done my libstdc++ work to date under RH's assignment to 
the FSF. Before that happened, however, I did work as a Red Hat employee 
to bring what was a the time, Intel's standalone C++ parallel algorithms 
implementation into a state where it could be contributed to libstdc++ 
as Intel had offered. Intel *also* offered the implementation to libc++. 
The work I did to bring the implementation in line with the requirements 
for being part of the standard library is largely the same between 
libstdc++ and libc++, and it was decided that we'd contribute the work 
to the LLVM project and relicense under those terms. Then I'd contribute 
*that* relicensed work to libstdc++. So, to this point, no work had been 
done in the libstdc++ codebase, just Intel's upstream repo.

This required Intel's lawyers to get a copyright assignment from me. 
This in turn required me to talk to Red Hat's lawyers. Where upon I 
learned, as long as Red Hat employees' work is done under an approved 
open source/free software license, Red Hat does not assert ownership 
over the work. As a result, Red Hat confirmed they had no involvement in 
relicensing the work that they had paid for.

This is not a common situation with corporate work, I grant you. But it 
is very much the case with Red Hat's employee contributions that Red Hat 
does not itself assert ownership of the work they do. This means, in 
particular, that it is the decision of the Red Hat folks who work on GCC 
to continue doing so under the current terms, or, as Jonathan has 
indicated, to not do it under those terms.

I'd add that, while uncommon, it does make a lot of sense for a company 
like Red Hat, whose default stance is to open source everything that can 
be open sourced. If Red Hat has the same rights to the work that Red Hat 
is making available to everyone else by funding that work to be done in 
the first place, there isn't much need to assert additional copyright 
ownership over the work.

Obligatory disclaimer - This was based on my experience with Red Hat 
legal, and what I was told by them during this particular process. It is 
not to be construed as any public statement of policy.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:

>> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?

> I gave them in my initial email.  You can go find them in the archive.

Err, I've been repeatedly told (not by you) that that was a separate
discussion.

The reasons you pointed out, for removing RMS from where he wasn't, were
present in the hate letter.  Other posters who supported that non-move
disclaimed them as motivations, once the accusations got debunked and
people started withdrawing their signatures from the hate letter.

I expected that reasoning applied to you as well.

And now you surprise me by presenting the same reasons to support this
other move!

But hey, they're your reasons.

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" <oliva@gnu.org>
> Cc: "David Malcolm via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons.  What I
> > don't recall seeing is the actual issue.  Pardon me if I missed it; I
> > gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
> > sidestepped it, which tells me I don't really know what it is.  If you
> > could point to it in the archives, or restate it, I'd appreciate it.
> >
>
> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html
>
> GNU seems to have become a cult of personality. FSF seems to be a sinking
> ship.
>
> I don't think it benefits GCC to be linked to them. I think GCC would do
> better without those links.
>
> The mail linked above was quoted in the first mail in this sub-thread, when
> Mark changed the Subject:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235340.html
>
> I also agree with the sentiments in
> https://wingolog.org/archives/2021/03/25/here-we-go-again
>
> I said that the only benefit I see for GCC is the DNS records for
> gcc.gnu.org and apart from Mark suggesting that a single copyright holder
> is an advantage (which I am not convinced about) the only arguments put
> forward have been variations on:
>
> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)
>
> - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be trusted or
> don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true and don't see this
> as an advantage)
>
> - RMS doesn't get involved in GCC anyway, there's no reason to disassociate
> from him (still doesnt tell me what benefit there is, and ignores
> perception problems caused by that association)
>
> - it is not wise to disrespect the GNU Father (rambling troll who is listed
> as a GNU maintainer despite contributing no code, further devaluing the
> whole project)

You devalue him, I value him.  That's all.

I am a Official GNU Maintainer because the work is considered valuable because it
does not overlap with existing packages.  Besides needing capable people to help
there are legal reasons behind there being no code yet.  Those will be resolved.

I am recognised in various nations, and because I am in it the whole gnu project
is further valued.

> So no benefits that I can see. But lots of cult-like behaviour that helped
> me make up my mind.
>
> If the GNU project and the FSF want to keep RMS, fine, they can have him
> (if you check you'll find I haven't signed the GitHub letter). But they
> can't tell me to be happy about it and they can't tell me where to
> contribute my code.
>
> If the GNU project wants to pull my code from a fork, without my copyright
> assignment, I will consider that a small victory because it will mean
> they're willing to accept the contributions without owning the copyright.
> I'd like that.
>
> Anybody is welcome to use my code subject to its licence terms. But that
> doesn't mean they're welcome to own it or call it theirs. Assigning my
> copyright is my choice (and w.r.t what you said to Dave about "selling our
> services" ... a cheap shot which assumes we aren't contributing under
> personal assignments to the FSF, and assumes we have no choice to work
> elsewhere if we don't like the terms).
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html

Thanks

> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)

Fair enough, even though your message starts by making it personal.

That said, even if the answer to the question about benefits turned out
to be "none whatsoever, as usual", that wouldn't be a motivator for
change to the status quo.  It would be as much of a reason to "why" as
for "why not".  So there would have to be something *else* that was
sensible to drive this pursuit, and to drive it right now.

Like, some other expected or perceived benefit that for whatever reason
wasn't viable before, and that seems more appealing than the current
situation.  No such motivating factor has been mentioned, and though GNU
is hardly a social GNUtopia, I expect you to find that the pastures are
greener on the other side of the fence, regardless of which side you're
on ;-)


> - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be trusted or
> don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true and don't see this
> as an advantage)

Trust is not rational indeed, but a lot of people trust RMS to be
committed to FS values, and have little reason to trust people they
don't know, even if we're just as trustworthy.


That trust is probably most relevant in connection with FSF's
responsibilities of copyright enforcement, publishing new versions of
GNU licenses, and licensing GNU software assigned to it.  As various
organizations in the FLOSS space have been steered away from their
original purposes, I find legitimacy in people's preferences for someone
credibly committed, unbudging and incorruptible sharing in these
responsibilities.

FSF's historically credible commitment to the cause, reinforced by RMS's
presence, appears to offer a significant deterrent to copyright
infringement, whereas other popular projects that have dispersed their
copyrights, such as Linux, are frequent victims of legal neglect (and
occasionally malice) that leaves users unable to enjoy the freedoms they
deserve, despite laudable efforts of enforcement and of reaggregation of
representation, to try to make enforcement more viable and effective.

The reaggregation efforts suggest that dispersal does make enforcement
more difficult, so unless you wish to make the project more vulnerable
to infringement, I'd strongly advise some aggregation plan in place.



> - RMS doesn't get involved in GCC anyway, there's no reason to disassociate
> from him (still doesnt tell me what benefit there is, and ignores
> perception problems caused by that association)

No change to motivate change either, and ignores perception problems
caused by the poorly-justified and -timed termination of that
association.


> - it is not wise to disrespect the GNU Father (rambling troll who is listed
> as a GNU maintainer despite contributing no code, further devaluing the
> whole project)

That was unkind of you.  You're also leaping to conclusions based on
incorrect premises, as has happened so often in this conversation :-/

Sorting out some copyright issues sometimes takes longer than everyone
would like.  That who was never sloppy with copyrights gets to throw the
first stone.

> But lots of cult-like behaviour that helped me make up my mind.

You know what's funny?  Some cults are in favor of something, and some
are against something.  While what you label a cult is based on
philosophical and ethical foundations for the common good, the hate cult
you chose is built upon intolerance, half truths, false accusations,
repeated lies, significant influxes of freedom-denying capital, and
opportunistic timing.

Yeah, it's not really funny :-(

> If the GNU project and the FSF want to keep RMS, fine, they can have him

Thank you very much :-)

> But they can't tell me to be happy about it and they can't tell me
> where to contribute my code.

*nod*


> If the GNU project wants to pull my code from a fork, without my copyright
> assignment, I will consider that a small victory because it will mean
> they're willing to accept the contributions without owning the copyright.
> I'd like that.

Please talk to a lawyer you trust about this.  I don't know what you're
trying to accomplish, but if you value copyleft and would rather not
weaken it, I believe a competent lawyer will tell you why that's not
such a wise thing to like, and how to mitigate the downsides if you,
erhm, insist on liking it ;-)

> and w.r.t what you said to Dave about "selling our services" ...

I see nothing wrong about selling services of Free Software development.

> a cheap shot which assumes we aren't contributing under
> personal assignments to the FSF

Without a personal assignment on file?!?

> and assumes we have no choice to work
> elsewhere if we don't like the terms).

I don't know where you got that assumption, but it wasn't from me.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

Hi Alexandre and Jonathan,

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:49:54 -0300 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:

> > - RMS ensures GCC stays honest (implying the rest of us can't be
> > trusted or don't *really* believe in FOSS, I don't think it's true
> > and don't see this as an advantage)  
> 
> Trust is not rational indeed

In fact, trust has been fundamental to the evolution human race and is
still foundational to both market economy (as Adam Smith wrote in 1776)
and democracy.

Trust CAN be naive when granted to people or organizations with either a
track record of misbehaviour or misaligned incentives with the trustee.

But trust is really irrational only when it cannot be easily reclaimed:
when it's sticky (for any reason) it turns to political Power that
tends to produce more issues than it used to solve as trust.


Anyway, it's important to note that the point has never been
"RMS is trustworthy while you are not", but "the FSF and the GNU
project are credibly committed to protect Free Softare in the long run,
the other members of the Steering Committee might or might not".

Also looking at their affiliations and with all respect for their own
personal integrity, too many things can go wrong to be ignored.


People changes, group changes... shits happen.

But if you have certain interests and demographics overly
over-represented in the leadership of an organization, certain
shits will happen way more than others and pass unnoticed. 


That's why I asked to fix the Steering Committee and NOT to reinstall
Stallman: even if I rationally trust his consistency on Free Software,
I'm not sure anymore his oversight really worked.


> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt

It might be irrelevant to your question (and for you personally), but
it's not irrelevant to a movement that consider software as a form of
expression like any other and explicitly refer to Free Software as Free
Speech.

In fact, all of the alligations against RMS are so solid that the
harassers themeselves had to retract most them:
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

But it's not matter of fairness or inclusiveness: it's just politics.
People here are exploiting the mob lynching Stallman to remove FSF
oversight over the project without being questioned too closely from
the rest of the world.


But having said that, I'd really like to see Jonathan going forward with
his fork if he can take with him most of US-corporate interests.

Which doesn't mean that US-corporations should be forbidden here, just
that they should have NOT such an overwhelming and unbalanced influence
on the leadership of the project.


My (hopefully last :-D) two cents.


Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Richard Biener via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> To: "Jason Merrill" <jason@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@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 <jason@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 <tkoenig@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
>
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Biener]

On April 15, 2021 6:02:50 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill <jason@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 <tkoenig@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.

True. That's definitely better communication. 

Richard. 

>Jason

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jason Merrill]

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 <tkoenig@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.

Jason

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:42 AM
> From: "Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>, "Toon Moene" <toon@moene.org>
> Cc: "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 
> On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> >> From: "Toon Moene" <toon@moene.org>
> >> To: "Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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.
> >>> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches
> >>> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function
> >>> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare
> >>> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more
> >>> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.
> >> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters
> >> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was
> >> completely unclear to me where it would end.
> >>
> >> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization,
> >> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.
> >>
> >> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been
> >> disappointed.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> >> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
> > The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be
> > inefficient and unwieldy.   As long as the license terms for free software
> > are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased.
> 
> Umm, no.  The projects re-united because the FSF fork wasn't viable and 
> we structured EGCS so that if it was successful it could supplant the 
> FSF fork.  Toon, myself and others were part of that process.

Would you consider the current situation as separate still?  It seems that
some coordination is needed, irrespective of disagreement, if there is to
be a future in all this.

Had asked Thomas Koenig for details which I could follow very clearly.
He talked sense to me. 
 
> jeff
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> To: "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 
> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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 is likely that gcc.gnu.org would not be available.

> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.

> Given there would be actual work involved on the FSF side to keep a "fork" with the exact same setup (and thus transparent with existing setups) I don't see it keeping live (but I see somebody populating savannah with sources).
> 
> Absolutely.  I could even see a small community continuing to push the 
> FSF fork for a while until it becomes abundantly clear that only one 
> fork is long term viable.  That's what happened with EGCS -- the 
> majority of the developer community went with the EGCS fork with a small 
> community staying on the FSF fork.  Eventually it became clear that EGCS 
> had much broader developer support and the FSF fork ultimately withered 
> away.

The issue would then be of compatibility.  Free Software is that which, by
definition, may be forked from the original development team without prior
permission, without violating copyright law.  Gcc would continue as a Gnu 
Project nonetheless.  Technically, gcc is not a fork.   
 
> Jeff
> 
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
>> From: "Toon Moene" <toon@moene.org>
>> To: "Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
>> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>>
>> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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.
>>> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches
>>> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function
>>> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare
>>> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more
>>> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.
>> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters
>> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was
>> completely unclear to me where it would end.
>>
>> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization,
>> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.
>>
>> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been
>> disappointed.
>>
>> -- 
>> Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
>> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
> The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be
> inefficient and unwieldy.   As long as the license terms for free software
> are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased.

Umm, no.  The projects re-united because the FSF fork wasn't viable and 
we structured EGCS so that if it was successful it could supplant the 
FSF fork.  Toon, myself and others were part of that process.


jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> From: "Toon Moene" <toon@moene.org>
> To: "Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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.
> 
> > I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
> > critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
> > of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
> > scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
> > concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.
> 
> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters 
> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was 
> completely unclear to me where it would end.
> 
> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization, 
> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.
> 
> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been 
> disappointed.
> 
> -- 
> Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be
inefficient and unwieldy.   As long as the license terms for free software
are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased. 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Toon Moene]

On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:

> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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.

> I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
> of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.

When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters 
were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was 
completely unclear to me where it would end.

But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization, 
or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software.

That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been 
disappointed.

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc 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 <tkoenig@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.
I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches 
critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function 
of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare 
scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more 
concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments.


>
> Given there would be actual work involved on the FSF side to keep a "fork" with the exact same setup (and thus transparent with existing setups) I don't see it keeping live (but I see somebody populating savannah with sources).

Absolutely.  I could even see a small community continuing to push the 
FSF fork for a while until it becomes abundantly clear that only one 
fork is long term viable.  That's what happened with EGCS -- the 
majority of the developer community went with the EGCS fork with a small 
community staying on the FSF fork.  Eventually it became clear that EGCS 
had much broader developer support and the FSF fork ultimately withered 
away.


Jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Biener]

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 <tkoenig@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. 

Given there would be actual work involved on the FSF side to keep a "fork" with the exact same setup (and thus transparent with existing setups) I don't see it keeping live (but I see somebody populating savannah with sources). 

Richard. 

Richard. 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@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.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 14.04.21 09:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
>> mailing list do not follow gcc.  I know of at least two contributors
>> (myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
>> in that case.
> 
> Do you mind if I ask why?
> 
> (I totally understand that you'd rather not have this topic spill over
> onto the gfortran list, so I'm only asking why you'd stop contributing
> if there were two active forks of GCC, not anybody else).

Because I am not willing to donate my time and effort for a doomed
project, and if that split happens, I consider gfortran doomed
for good.

Let's look at

- All gfortran developers stay on the FSF branch.
   Bug fixing goes on as usual, the other branch picks up whatever
   it wants.  This I could see as working, sort
   of.  If the FSF and the other branch diverge in their middle
   end interface, or if the other branch decides not to port something,
   this is bit rot that the maintainers of the other branch
   would have to deal with.  So, gfortran bitrots on the new
   branch, basically.  The question then is if the FSF branch
   will still be the relevant one the future.  If not, gfortran
   will then die a lingering death.

- gfortran developers try to work on both branches, or have
   one primary branch and one other branch.  Dealing with two
   versions is far too much for our resources, we can hardly
   keep up with one.  This is a recipe for disaster, and
   I will not spend my volunteer time on this.

- Some gfortran developers decide to move to the other branch,
   cross-porting fixes if necessary.  This will also lead
   to fewer resources of a project that has already too few,
   and is not sustainable.

- All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
   happen, I can guarantee you that.

- Somebody decides that hiring a couple of professional programmers
   working full-time keeping the project alive on both sides.
   That has not happened in decades (gfortran has always been
   mostly volunteer-driven), and I consider that extremely
   unlikely.

So, let me modify my statement: It only makes sense for me to
continue working on gfortran if the branch fails.  In that case,
the maxim usually employed by pharmaceutical R&D applies:
"Fail early, fail cheap", and the cheapest way to fail is
never to start.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
> mailing list do not follow gcc.  I know of at least two contributors
> (myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
> in that case.

Do you mind if I ask why?

(I totally understand that you'd rather not have this topic spill over
onto the gfortran list, so I'm only asking why you'd stop contributing
if there were two active forks of GCC, not anybody else).

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 14.04.21 01:41, Jeff Law wrote:
> 
> On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>>> I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split.  Based on 
>>> what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with 
>>> EGCS.  But that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, 
>>> particularly those doing the day-to-date development work -- I want 
>>> to see what the likely impact on the development community would be 
>>> rather than going with just what *I* want.
>>
>> If such a split were to occur, it would probably cost you gfortran.
>> We're in a precarious situation as is.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not following gfortran closely.  Is there a reason to believe 
> that the gfortran developers would split across the two projects? 

There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
mailing list do not follow gcc.  I know of at least two contributors
(myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
in that case.  But then again, I'm only the currently active contributor
with the longest service history (since 2005), so my contribution
may not matter much.

You can, of course, raise the issue on the gfortran mailing list.
This will poison it with the same discussion that has poisoned the gcc
mailing list.  There is an even chance that this will lead people
to stop contributing already.

> If 
> so, that's a significant issue.  If you've got a pointer to a 
> discussion, I'm happy to take it and read up on things.

Well, just raise the issue.  I will, in that case, I will certainly
add my opinion.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>> I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split.  Based on 
>> what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with 
>> EGCS.  But that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, 
>> particularly those doing the day-to-date development work -- I want 
>> to see what the likely impact on the development community would be 
>> rather than going with just what *I* want.
>
> If such a split were to occur, it would probably cost you gfortran.
> We're in a precarious situation as is.

Hmm, I'm not following gfortran closely.  Is there a reason to believe 
that the gfortran developers would split across the two projects?  If 
so, that's a significant issue.  If you've got a pointer to a 
discussion, I'm happy to take it and read up on things.


>
> So, goodbye to SPEC for both branches in the medium term.

That depends, of course.


Jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split.  Based on what 
> I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with EGCS.  But 
> that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, particularly those doing 
> the day-to-date development work -- I want to see what the likely impact 
> on the development community would be rather than going with just what 
> *I* want.

If such a split were to occur, it would probably cost you gfortran.
We're in a precarious situation as is.

So, goodbye to SPEC for both branches in the medium term.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/13/2021 10:52 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>> An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite 
>> possibility here
>
> Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
> GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM, thus rendering
> GCC irrelevant and ruining an important project for free software.
>
> (I don't like the idea, for the record).

I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split.  Based on what 
I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with EGCS.  But 
that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, particularly those doing 
the day-to-date development work -- I want to see what the likely impact 
on the development community would be rather than going with just what 
*I* want.


jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite 
> possibility here

Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM, thus rendering
GCC irrelevant and ruining an important project for free software.

(I don't like the idea, for the record).

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/13/2021 12:01 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:24 PM Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>> On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>>
>>> Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
>>> release of GCC 11 out of the door.
>> Then it is important this is resolved.
> Maybe - but it is very apparent that the current "discussion" will lead nowhere.

I would disagree with that Richi.  While there are elements in this 
discussion that are unhelpful, the overall question about GCC 
association with the FSF and GNU is a good one to be working through.


An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite 
possibility here and judging the mood of the GCC development community 
is vital to guiding decisions we need to make as a project.

Jeff





.  Without strong support from the development community splits like 
that aren't likely to be successful.  And to be clear, what *I* will be 
looking at is how those doing the real work respond, not the ramblings 
of folks who

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Biener]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:24 PM Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> >
> > Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
> > release of GCC 11 out of the door.
>
> Then it is important this is resolved.

Maybe - but it is very apparent that the current "discussion" will lead nowhere.

Richard.

> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Daniel (Robin) Smith]

"but muh freedum license reeeee"

"haha quality compiler suite go brrr"

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 8:25 PM Chris Punches via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> That will never make it appropriate.
>
> I would encourage you to reflect more carefully on the meaning of the
> words you are reading and using.
>
> These arguments are paper thin, and full of lofty rhetoric; none of
> them will expand the expectation of anyone here to include integrating
> their poltical beliefs into the GCC project roadmap beyond its
> technical and licensing goals.
>
> I would encourage anyone reading this to start treating this discussion
> as off-topic disruption for the GCC SC.
>
> -C
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 17:22 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 4/11/21 9:34 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
> > > innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
> > > maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction
> > > of
> > > the very projects they are sponsoring.
> >
> > Good job that's not what is happening then.
> >
> > > It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non-
> > > sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone
> > > that a
> > > couple corporates in your group don't like out of their
> > > organization.
> > >   I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and
> > > integrity to this discussion.
> >
> > People, and companies can chose to support whatever organizations
> > they desire,
> > and they can chose to withdraw such support.  For what ever reasons
> > they may have.
> >
> > nathan
> >
> >
>
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Chris Punches]

That will never make it appropriate.

I would encourage you to reflect more carefully on the meaning of the
words you are reading and using.

These arguments are paper thin, and full of lofty rhetoric; none of
them will expand the expectation of anyone here to include integrating
their poltical beliefs into the GCC project roadmap beyond its
technical and licensing goals.

I would encourage anyone reading this to start treating this discussion
as off-topic disruption for the GCC SC.

-C

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 17:22 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 4/11/21 9:34 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
> > innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
> > maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction
> > of
> > the very projects they are sponsoring.
> 
> Good job that's not what is happening then.
> 
> > It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non-
> > sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone
> > that a
> > couple corporates in your group don't like out of their
> > organization.
> >   I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and
> > integrity to this discussion.
> 
> People, and companies can chose to support whatever organizations
> they desire, 
> and they can chose to withdraw such support.  For what ever reasons
> they may have.
> 
> nathan
> 
> 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:

> 
> Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
> release of GCC 11 out of the door.

Then it is important this is resolved.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 4/11/21 9:34 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:

> It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
> innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
> maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
> the very projects they are sponsoring.

Good job that's not what is happening then.

> It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non-
> sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone that a
> couple corporates in your group don't like out of their organization.
>   I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and
> integrity to this discussion.

People, and companies can chose to support whatever organizations they desire, 
and they can chose to withdraw such support.  For what ever reasons they may have.

nathan


-- 
Nathan Sidwell

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 12/04/2021 14:52, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
>> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
>> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;
> 
> Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's
> just that it was there right then, it's *remains* there.  Not exclusive
> among glibc maintainers, and certainly not unanimous among them, but
> there.  I may even have earned it myself.  But the one that Richard got
> over incorrect assumptions that he commanded the reversal, that's just
> another false piece of evidence often used to support the hate campaign.

There were no "hate" campaign from glibc developers and maintainers,
keep stating it does not make it true.  Since libc-alpha is non moderated
list, there were a lot of unfriendly message from undisclosed or
non-representative people.

What happened is some glibc developers were *really* annoyed in the way
*you* acted, not RMS; and they vocalized it.  And you, instead of work 
toward to create consensus by making some concession (as the currently
we try to run the glibc community), keep arguing to exhaustion that you
acted in the benefit or the project.  

So the aforementioned 'hate' is just because we did not agreed in the
way *you* acted, which caused a lot of distress.

> 
>> The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc
>> developers and maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a
>> technical manual.
> 
> I understand there is consensus about that now, but back then there were
> too many unsettled policy issues to make that call consensually among
> all relevant parties.
> 
> The main disagreement was not over the issue proper, though.  It was
> about procedure, and then it was about whose opinions as much as
> counted.

No, the disagreement is the way *you* did it. I haven't seen such
contention and disarray you started since I have started to work on the 
project, about a decade ago.

So, please stop put the blame of that episode on the glibc community as 
a whole.

> 
> 
> It was a really trivial issue, but sufficiently hot-button and
> triggering enough underlying issues that it got to be exploited
> politically in several ugly ways.
> 
> It can't really be understood without looking into broader contexts that
> had long been mounting, and that again quite explicit in this list too.
> 
> 
> But I hope we can all agree that it was a horrible mess.
> 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;

Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's
just that it was there right then, it's *remains* there.  Not exclusive
among glibc maintainers, and certainly not unanimous among them, but
there.  I may even have earned it myself.  But the one that Richard got
over incorrect assumptions that he commanded the reversal, that's just
another false piece of evidence often used to support the hate campaign.

> The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc
> developers and maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a
> technical manual.

I understand there is consensus about that now, but back then there were
too many unsettled policy issues to make that call consensually among
all relevant parties.

The main disagreement was not over the issue proper, though.  It was
about procedure, and then it was about whose opinions as much as
counted.


It was a really trivial issue, but sufficiently hot-button and
triggering enough underlying issues that it got to be exploited
politically in several ugly ways.

It can't really be understood without looking into broader contexts that
had long been mounting, and that again quite explicit in this list too.


But I hope we can all agree that it was a horrible mess.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Kalamatee]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:13, Chris Punches via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes.  I am nobody
> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day.  No one
> ever really knows.
>
> I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because, if I am
> paying enough attention to know that some here are not, perhaps people
> who are not "nobody" will have similar observations.
>
> It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
> innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
> maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
> the very projects they are sponsoring.
>
> It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non-
> sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone that a
> couple corporates in your group don't like out of their organization.
>  I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and
> integrity to this discussion.
>
> This kind of thinking has defaced this project.  What are you thinking?
>  We don't care about your political views.  We don't care about GCC's
> participation in activism-- in fact, many would view it as a marker of
> instability of the project.  We care about the stable maintenance of
> GCC into perpetuity.
>
> No one who cares about these projects wants these kinds of politics
> driving such a technical and fundamental project.  You have been
> infected.  Please restore the compasses and carry on.
>
> I salute you,
>

+1

I find some of the behaviour and and actions of developers afforded
positions of authority in the project highly unprofessional, and
irresponsible. I would seriously question their motives, and why they are
involved in the project at all.


> -C
>
> On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 21:03 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
> > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid <
> > > pankaj@codeisgreat.org> wrote:
> > > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the
> > > > SC
> > > > does.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
> > >
> > > The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
> > > maintainers: the people who have the right to approve changes to
> > > specific parts of GCC, and the people who have the right to make
> > > changes to specific parts of GCC without requiring approval from
> > > anybody else.  These people are listed in the MAINTAINERS file in
> > > the
> > > gcc repository (currently
> > >
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=db25583b37b917102b001c0025d90ee0bc12800f;hb=HEAD
> ),
> > > from the start of the file down to the list of "Write After
> > > Approval"
> > > people.
> > >
> > > A secondary job of the GCC steering committee is to approve new
> > > additions to GCC that are not under the GPL for one reason or
> > > another.
> > > This happens rarely.
> > >
> > > A tertiary job of the GCC steering committee is to decide disputes
> > > between maintainers that the maintainers are unable to resolve.  I
> > > can't recall this ever happening.
> > >
> > > The GCC steering committee is in principle a place to make
> > > decisions
> > > that affect the entire project.  There are very few such decisions.
> > > One was the decision to change the implementation language of GCC
> > > from
> > > C to C++, a decision made in 2010.  Another was the decision to
> > > allow
> > > GCC plugins.  As a counter-example, moving GCC from Subversion to
> > > git
> > > was supported by the steering committee members, but there was no
> > > formal decision by the steering committee to approve the move.
> > >
> > > More generally, the GCC steering committee has historically served
> > > as
> > > a point of contact between the FSF and the GCC developers.  In my
> > > opinion this has not amounted to much over the years that I've been
> > > on
> > > the committee (since 2014).
> >
> > Also, because the FSF considers the GCC SC the "package maintainers"
> > of GCC, the Steering Committee also receives and answers questions
> > and
> > requests from RMS and the FSF.
> >
> > And, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe that the role of the
> > GCC SC is to perform some of the duties of a good technical manager:
> > remove real or potential roadblocks so that the developers can focus
> > on being productive.
> >
> > Some of us have initiated other activities and alliances to support
> > and promote GCC and the GNU Toolchain, although it is not an official
> > responsibility of the GCC SC.
> >
> > Thanks, David
>
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> For developers, I think the GPL matters very much. It introduces
> fairness in the contribution process - companies and individuals
> can contribute code knowing that it can't be taken away and locked
> up, to be modified, sold and distributed as binary packages
> (eg. Nvidia).

Note that this discussion (part of which occurred off-list) didn't resolve
the question of whether Nvidia did or didn't do that: nobody's been
able to figure out what the Nvidia package in question does.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Sujith Manoharan]

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > So why /do/ people use it?  I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> > "it's the only compiler that will do the job".  For a lot of important
> > software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing.  Another big
> > reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case
> > for Linux systems.  In the embedded development world (where I work),
> > the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to
> > download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it
> > is more often gcc than not.  You use gcc because that is the standard,
> > not from choice.
> >
> > For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so?  I'd guess
> > being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher
> > than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free
> > software" and "open source software".  (For me, a major reason is that
> > the same compiler supports a wide range of targets.  That, and that gcc
> > is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.)
> 
> To summarize, following are the reasons:
> 
> 1. It compiles complex projects like Linux kernel[1].
> 2. It comes bundled with system
> 3. Bundled with IDE toolchains for embedded programming
> 4. Free (as in beer)
> 5. Supports wide range of targets
> 6. GCC is technically better compiler for specific needs
> 
> I agree with all of the things. And I agree that a minority of the GCC
> users and developers care about “Free Software” (as in freedom). What I
> want to emphasize is that, once LLVM catches up on the above 6 points,
> it will be only those who care about “freedom” that will stick to the
> project.

For users, the license will not matter much and the above reasons will
most likely cover their needs.

For developers, I think the GPL matters very much. It introduces
fairness in the contribution process - companies and individuals
can contribute code knowing that it can't be taken away and locked
up, to be modified, sold and distributed as binary packages
(eg. Nvidia).

If ever there is something like a Libre Toolchain Foundation or
similar in the future, stressing and advertising how the GPL
protects code contributions can make a difference, IMHO.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Bronek Kozicki]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 11:24, Bronek Kozicki <b.kozicki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:12, Chris Punches via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
>> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes.  I am nobody
>> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day.  No one
>> ever really knows.
>>
>> I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because, if I am
>> paying enough attention to know that some here are not, perhaps people
>> who are not "nobody" will have similar observations.
>>
>> It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
>> innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
>> maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
>> the very projects they are sponsoring.
>>
>
>
> The whole controversy is *because* many of the allegations are well
> founded. Some of the current SC members in this thread make it sound as if
> they were made up, but they never attempted as much as put the first few
> points (ones which matter to me the most, as a father) in any doubt from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html
>


My sincere apologies to SC members, it was pointed out to me privately
(thank you!) that the defenders of the person in question are not actually
in SC.


B.

-- 
Bronek Kozicki     brok@incorrekt.com <brok@spamcop.net>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 12.04.21 11:32, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:

> Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
> release of GCC 11 out of the door.

Amen.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Bronek Kozicki]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:12, Chris Punches via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes.  I am nobody
> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day.  No one
> ever really knows.
>
> I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because, if I am
> paying enough attention to know that some here are not, perhaps people
> who are not "nobody" will have similar observations.
>
> It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
> innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
> maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
> the very projects they are sponsoring.
>


The whole controversy is *because* many of the allegations are well
founded. Some of the current SC members in this thread make it sound as if
they were made up, but they never attempted as much as put the first few
points (ones which matter to me the most, as a father) in any doubt from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html


B.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Biener]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 7:22 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 16:56 David Brown, wrote:
>
> >
> > The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
> > accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name.  If the
> > FSF keep their own "gcc" project, then calling the new fork "gcc" as
> > well would cause confusion.
>
>
> Packagers for Linux distros and BSD ports collections (and similar like
> MinGW distros) are unlikely to be confused for long.
>
> The GNU project can have the "GNU C Compiler" name, as far as I'm
> concerned. The "GNU Compiler Collection" name dates from the time when EGCS
> replaced the original GCC so I would argue that the FSF couldn't claim
> ownership of a new twist on it like "GCC Compiler Collection".
>
> And Apple already got away with shipping clang as the "gcc" and "g++"
> executables (albeit causing much confusion) so even if the project changed
> name, the shipped products wouldn't need to.
>
> Your point is valid, but I've been thinking about the practicalities a lot.
> I still think losing the gcc.gnu.org DNS records would be the biggest
> drawback.
>
>
>   And calling it something else would also
> > confuse people - many would use the FSF gcc because of its name, not
> > realising that there is a better fork.  You can see that in the
> > OpenOffice / LibreOffice split - I think a large proportion of people
> > downloading OpenOffice do so without realising that LibreOffice exists
> > and is way ahead of it on features.
> >
>
> Only a small minority download GCC (we don't provide binaries for a start,
> so most people use the binary package from their OS, or a semi-automated
> build like portage or MacPorts).
>
> So I'm not terribly concerned about that problem.
>
>
> > A fork may be unavoidable in the end, but a more diplomatic change of
> > structure would have many advantages if it can be achieved.
> >
>
> I would be very happy if the FSF took that view and let us walk away. If
> not, I don't think it's a huge problem.

Please people take a step back and let things cool down.  While GCC
might have little benefit from being associated with the FSF or GNU
(I haven't made up my own mind on this yet) the benefits from
disassociating itself from the FSF (or GNU) has just as many
(little) benefits on its own as it has (possible) downsides.

Certainly this whole discussion makes neither the GCC nor the
FSF/GNU side appear in any positive way.

Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.

Thanks,
Richard.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 4/12/21 12:55 PM, John Darrington wrote:
> In GNU, there are no "senior" (or junior) developers/maintainers.  Maintainers
> have some specific responsibilities, with which developers are not emcumbered.
> In almost all projects, the maintainers are also developers, but this need not
> be the case.  But all maintainers are equal, and all developers are equal.

Those are terms we tend to use in the glibc developer community to 
loosely indicate the amount of time and resources individuals have spent 
in the glibc project as developers, testers, release managers, etc.  In 
fact, 'maintainer' in glibc is not the same as 'maintainer' in GNU 
because they're not GNU maintainers.  We call GNU maintainers "FSF 
stewards" in glibc to disambiguate that.

It doesn't matter what these roles are called in GNU because they're not 
the names we use in the glibc community on a day to day basis.  That 
said, we can have a conversation about glibc on the glibc mailing list. 
  The gcc mailing list is not the place for it.  In the interest of 
keeping the thread relevant, this is my last email on this topic on the 
gcc mailing list.

Siddhesh

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

41;344;0cOn Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 07:30:13PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella via Gcc wrote:
     
     And there was no hate (at least not from my side) only *disappointment* that you used your status to do it even though most of senior developers and maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it.

In GNU, there are no "senior" (or junior) developers/maintainers.  Maintainers
have some specific responsibilities, with which developers are not emcumbered.
In almost all projects, the maintainers are also developers, but this need not
be the case.  But all maintainers are equal, and all developers are equal.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Pankaj Jangid]

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> So why /do/ people use it?  I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> "it's the only compiler that will do the job".  For a lot of important
> software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing.  Another big
> reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case
> for Linux systems.  In the embedded development world (where I work),
> the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to
> download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it
> is more often gcc than not.  You use gcc because that is the standard,
> not from choice.
>
> For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so?  I'd guess
> being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher
> than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free
> software" and "open source software".  (For me, a major reason is that
> the same compiler supports a wide range of targets.  That, and that gcc
> is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.)

To summarize, following are the reasons:

1. It compiles complex projects like Linux kernel[1].
2. It comes bundled with system
3. Bundled with IDE toolchains for embedded programming
4. Free (as in beer)
5. Supports wide range of targets
6. GCC is technically better compiler for specific needs

I agree with all of the things. And I agree that a minority of the GCC
users and developers care about “Free Software” (as in freedom). What I
want to emphasize is that, once LLVM catches up on the above 6 points,
it will be only those who care about “freedom” that will stick to the
project.

[Ref]
1. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:43 PM Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
> > ignored it anyway.
>
> How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
>
> > *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided
> > to act in that way
>
> There have been plenty of insinuations that contradict that assumption
> and attempted to somehow blame it on RMS, but whether the record has
> been set straight on this point now, or if it was straight already, the
> point stands.

No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
and contributors
acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke' removal. Sorry, but this
is not true; there
were messages that might be characterized as such but they did not come from
either of main glibc developers or maintainers.

>
> As recently as a couple of weeks ago someone referred, in this list, to
> RMS's voicing his objection to the removal of one of the many pieces he
> wrote for the glibc manual, and then setting out to propose and discuss
> policies that incided on the matter, as if those were horrible actions.
>
> That was almost as abhorrent as his asking a GNU developer a question
> that he could have answered by just downloading the subproject's source
> code and looking for the answer himself!  Oh, the horror!
>
>
> If that's not hatred, I don't really wish to know what is :-/

The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc
developers and
maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a technical manual. You might
disagree ideological and politically from this assessment, but this it
is not "hatred" and
this very rhetoric is trying to characterize it as such is what made
me see that discussion
as frustrating and disappointing.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 4/12/21 7:13 AM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
>> ignored it anyway.
> 
> How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?

There are irreconcilable differences in perceptions over the events that 
unfolded then and your comments and Adhemerval's (that, FWIW, I echo as 
glibc not-a-gnu-maintainer-just-a-contributor) are sufficient to signal 
that.  The discussion of the events itself is irrelevant to this thread 
and this mailing list so I suggest we stop this subthread.

Siddhesh

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
> ignored it anyway.

How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?

> *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided
> to act in that way

There have been plenty of insinuations that contradict that assumption
and attempted to somehow blame it on RMS, but whether the record has
been set straight on this point now, or if it was straight already, the
point stands.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago someone referred, in this list, to
RMS's voicing his objection to the removal of one of the many pieces he
wrote for the glibc manual, and then setting out to propose and discuss
policies that incided on the matter, as if those were horrible actions.

That was almost as abhorrent as his asking a GNU developer a question
that he could have answered by just downloading the subproject's source
code and looking for the answer himself!  Oh, the horror!


If that's not hatred, I don't really wish to know what is :-/

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Chris Punches]

Hello,

I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes.  I am nobody
you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day.  No one
ever really knows.

I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because, if I am
paying enough attention to know that some here are not, perhaps people
who are not "nobody" will have similar observations.

It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on
innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political
maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of
the very projects they are sponsoring.

It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non-
sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone that a
couple corporates in your group don't like out of their organization.
 I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and
integrity to this discussion.

This kind of thinking has defaced this project.  What are you thinking?
 We don't care about your political views.  We don't care about GCC's
participation in activism-- in fact, many would view it as a marker of
instability of the project.  We care about the stable maintenance of
GCC into perpetuity.

No one who cares about these projects wants these kinds of politics
driving such a technical and fundamental project.  You have been
infected.  Please restore the compasses and carry on.

I salute you,

-C

On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 21:03 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid <
> > pankaj@codeisgreat.org> wrote:
> > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the
> > > SC
> > > does.
> > 
> > I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
> > 
> > The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
> > maintainers: the people who have the right to approve changes to
> > specific parts of GCC, and the people who have the right to make
> > changes to specific parts of GCC without requiring approval from
> > anybody else.  These people are listed in the MAINTAINERS file in
> > the
> > gcc repository (currently
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=db25583b37b917102b001c0025d90ee0bc12800f;hb=HEAD),
> > from the start of the file down to the list of "Write After
> > Approval"
> > people.
> > 
> > A secondary job of the GCC steering committee is to approve new
> > additions to GCC that are not under the GPL for one reason or
> > another.
> > This happens rarely.
> > 
> > A tertiary job of the GCC steering committee is to decide disputes
> > between maintainers that the maintainers are unable to resolve.  I
> > can't recall this ever happening.
> > 
> > The GCC steering committee is in principle a place to make
> > decisions
> > that affect the entire project.  There are very few such decisions.
> > One was the decision to change the implementation language of GCC
> > from
> > C to C++, a decision made in 2010.  Another was the decision to
> > allow
> > GCC plugins.  As a counter-example, moving GCC from Subversion to
> > git
> > was supported by the steering committee members, but there was no
> > formal decision by the steering committee to approve the move.
> > 
> > More generally, the GCC steering committee has historically served
> > as
> > a point of contact between the FSF and the GCC developers.  In my
> > opinion this has not amounted to much over the years that I've been
> > on
> > the committee (since 2014).
> 
> Also, because the FSF considers the GCC SC the "package maintainers"
> of GCC, the Steering Committee also receives and answers questions
> and
> requests from RMS and the FSF.
> 
> And, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe that the role of the
> GCC SC is to perform some of the duties of a good technical manager:
> remove real or potential roadblocks so that the developers can focus
> on being productive.
> 
> Some of us have initiated other activities and alliances to support
> and promote GCC and the GNU Toolchain, although it is not an official
> responsibility of the GCC SC.
> 
> Thanks, David

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Edelsohn]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
<gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > does.
>
> I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
>
> The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
> maintainers: the people who have the right to approve changes to
> specific parts of GCC, and the people who have the right to make
> changes to specific parts of GCC without requiring approval from
> anybody else.  These people are listed in the MAINTAINERS file in the
> gcc repository (currently
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=db25583b37b917102b001c0025d90ee0bc12800f;hb=HEAD),
> from the start of the file down to the list of "Write After Approval"
> people.
>
> A secondary job of the GCC steering committee is to approve new
> additions to GCC that are not under the GPL for one reason or another.
> This happens rarely.
>
> A tertiary job of the GCC steering committee is to decide disputes
> between maintainers that the maintainers are unable to resolve.  I
> can't recall this ever happening.
>
> The GCC steering committee is in principle a place to make decisions
> that affect the entire project.  There are very few such decisions.
> One was the decision to change the implementation language of GCC from
> C to C++, a decision made in 2010.  Another was the decision to allow
> GCC plugins.  As a counter-example, moving GCC from Subversion to git
> was supported by the steering committee members, but there was no
> formal decision by the steering committee to approve the move.
>
> More generally, the GCC steering committee has historically served as
> a point of contact between the FSF and the GCC developers.  In my
> opinion this has not amounted to much over the years that I've been on
> the committee (since 2014).

Also, because the FSF considers the GCC SC the "package maintainers"
of GCC, the Steering Committee also receives and answers questions and
requests from RMS and the FSF.

And, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe that the role of the
GCC SC is to perform some of the duties of a good technical manager:
remove real or potential roadblocks so that the developers can focus
on being productive.

Some of us have initiated other activities and alliances to support
and promote GCC and the GNU Toolchain, although it is not an official
responsibility of the GCC SC.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:04 AM David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> >> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> >> always the direction in which it *should* go.
> >
> > I agree.  And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
> > an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.
> >
> >> To give just one small practical example, I'm told (by people who are more
> >> familiar with GCC internals than I) that it is not feasible with today's
> >> GCC to port to backends which have a small number of registers.
> >
> > [Finally, a technical discussion in this thread!]
> >
> > It never really has been.  Maybe it's not even possible now (I don't
> > know), but if you tried it in the past the results would never have
> > been very good.  Almost all multi-backend systems operate by having
> > very large numbers of expressions at all levels, which you gradually
> > lower to actual registers.  This works quite well if you have enough
> > registers to hold the high-usage expressions in them, but when you
> > have high register pressure, the model breaks down completely.
> > Although the situation may well have gotten worse in recent versions
> > that I'm not familiar with, I'd say that GCC was probably doing a
> > *better* job with a small number of registers in more recent versions
> > than in older ones: "reload" was particularly bad when there was high
> > register pressure.
> >
> > When your main constraint is register pressure, in order to get
> > high-quality results, I think you almost have to change the entire
> > philosophy of compilation, to the point I think where you have an
> > almost entirely different compilation chain for such machines.
> >
>
> Low register count cpu designs have been out of fashion for quite some
> time now (perhaps precisely because they are not a good fit for common
> compiler strategies).  They are mostly found in older families, such as
> the 8-bit CISC designs in older microcontrollers (8051, PIC, COP8, 6502,
> etc.).  And you are absolutely right that you need a different way of
> thinking in order to get the best out of such chips - low register count
> is only one aspect.  Other issues are few or no flexible pointer
> registers, no "SP + offset" addressing modes for efficient parameters or
> stack frames, banked ram and code blocks, and multiple separate address
> spaces.  Good toolchains for such devices need to work in a very
> different way, and typically encompass compilation, assembling and
> linking in one "omniscient" build so that variables, parameters, etc.,
> can be placed statically in ways that minimise banking and maximise
> reuse, based on lifetime analysis of the whole program.
>
> This would be a massively different way of working from how gcc does
> things now, and given that such devices are very much on the decline
> (when 32-bit ARM microcontrollers can be bought for 30 cents, smaller
> and cheaper cpu cores are rarely the right choice for a new design), it
> would not make sense to spend the effort supporting them in gcc.  There
> is, after all, quite a solid GPL'ed compiler toolchain for such devices
> at <http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/>.

I think it depends on your goals.  In the past I've ported GCC to a
Harvard architecture system with six registers.  I agree that the code
quality was not the highest possible.  But the port worked fine, and
for this process performance was not an issue.  (As you suggest, I
tend to think that for most people who choose a processor with a small
number of registers, performance is not an issue.  Where performance
matters a lot, spend the money for a real processor, or at least use a
RISC/V.)

Ian

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> wrote:
>
> I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> does.

I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.

The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
maintainers: the people who have the right to approve changes to
specific parts of GCC, and the people who have the right to make
changes to specific parts of GCC without requiring approval from
anybody else.  These people are listed in the MAINTAINERS file in the
gcc repository (currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=db25583b37b917102b001c0025d90ee0bc12800f;hb=HEAD),
from the start of the file down to the list of "Write After Approval"
people.

A secondary job of the GCC steering committee is to approve new
additions to GCC that are not under the GPL for one reason or another.
This happens rarely.

A tertiary job of the GCC steering committee is to decide disputes
between maintainers that the maintainers are unable to resolve.  I
can't recall this ever happening.

The GCC steering committee is in principle a place to make decisions
that affect the entire project.  There are very few such decisions.
One was the decision to change the implementation language of GCC from
C to C++, a decision made in 2010.  Another was the decision to allow
GCC plugins.  As a counter-example, moving GCC from Subversion to git
was supported by the steering committee members, but there was no
formal decision by the steering committee to approve the move.

More generally, the GCC steering committee has historically served as
a point of contact between the FSF and the GCC developers.  In my
opinion this has not amounted to much over the years that I've been on
the committee (since 2014).

Ian

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:06 PM Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> > bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
>
> I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that
> the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been made at that point,
> so that the debate about whether or not to install the patch could be
> carried out without the fait accompli.  To my surprise, it stopped.
>
> Then, a year or so later, when most of the GNU policies that incided on
> that matter had already been discussed and approved, and they suggested
> (at least to me) that the conclusion was likely that the patch was in
> line with them, some other situation came up that reminded people of the
> patch, it was discussed under the heat of the unrelated situation (which
> I also found inappropriate), but it got applied AFAICT in accordance
> with GNU and GLIBC policies.

RMS briefly stated that he did not want the change to be applied, we
considered his
input back then but we decided to remove the joke *regardless* of what
he thought
about the subject. And you used this to state the change had no consensus to
reinstate it in a way that we haven't done in the project for a couple
of years and which
caused a lot of disarray. The problem was not that you did it, but how
you did it.

You then spent a lot of days trying to convince other glibc
maintainers about your
actions to the point that Torvald and Siddhesh were fed up with your rhetoric.

>
> > maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it.
>
> I do not see nor recall any such responses or reactions to my offer to
> revert the patch in case the installer wouldn't do it, except the
> installer saying they wouldn't do the reversal.  Eventually I did it.
> After the fact, some said I shouldn't have done it.
>
>
> That's my recollection of the events.

All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
ignored it anyway. And we did not want to start a potential contention of patch
applying and reversion from that petty discussion.

But this is done and I don't want to dig into this. My point is *we*
glibc maintainers
were fully aware that it was *you* that decided to act in that way and
it was not my
feelings that it was *hate* the dominant response, but rather a lot of
frustration and
disappointment from how you acted.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:04 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" <oliva@gnu.org>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
> > veneration.
> >
>
> There have been many posts over the past two weeks suggesting that without
> RMS to guide us, GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that nobody has any
> authority to decide on the future of GNU projects except RMS (a view also
> stated on GNU mailing lists by moderators of those very lists), or other
> silly claims that are based on little but veneration. They're not really
> based on anything about GCC, just "y u no like RMS?"

I have disagreed that GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that the only
person to decide is RMS.

> > I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
> > justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
> > movement.
> >
> > If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over false
> > allegations about a person, on occasion of that person rejoining the
> > board of an organization that was founded and has always supported the
> > project who's still led by that person, that makes the issue personal
> > and based on blind faith, though in the opposite sense of veneration.
> >
>
> Oh I have other reasons to consider the FSF a dead end too.
>
>
> > If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand
> > exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that
> > into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate.
> >
>
> Kind debate. Right.
>
> Maybe somebody from the GNU project or the FSF could tell one of their GNU
> Maintainers (apparently part of the governance structure of the GNU
> project) to stop calling people mad, or rats, or to stop endless off-topic
> trolling about communism. There is no kind debate when every other post is
> an attack from a troll.

Things can be said directly as customary.  You are certainly willing offending
me in your pursuit.  There have been instances where my post followed a number
of posts, but not on the entire thread.

> Your own emails are always carefully considered (and carefully skate around
> the actual issues people raised) but most of the other voices objecting to
> the requests to make changes to GCC are coming from outsiders who are only
> too happy to insult GCC devs and derail any "debate".

I am not an outsider.  Or have a plan to derail any debate or insult every
developer.  But the debate is in the gcc mailing list to which I was not an
outsider.  Changes can be done, and even if I would not agree with some
aspects, will respect the final choice.  There is no prerogative to praise
developers, including myself.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

> It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.

I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that
the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been made at that point,
so that the debate about whether or not to install the patch could be
carried out without the fait accompli.  To my surprise, it stopped.

Then, a year or so later, when most of the GNU policies that incided on
that matter had already been discussed and approved, and they suggested
(at least to me) that the conclusion was likely that the patch was in
line with them, some other situation came up that reminded people of the
patch, it was discussed under the heat of the unrelated situation (which
I also found inappropriate), but it got applied AFAICT in accordance
with GNU and GLIBC policies.

> maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it.

I do not see nor recall any such responses or reactions to my offer to
revert the patch in case the installer wouldn't do it, except the
installer saying they wouldn't do the reversal.  Eventually I did it.
After the fact, some said I shouldn't have done it.


That's my recollection of the events.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 4/11/21 5:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr  8, 2021, David Brown <david@westcontrol.com> wrote:
> 
>> I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
>> actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
> 
> If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
> please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying me?

Nice bit of deflection there.  I see what you're doing.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Adhemerval Zanella]

> Il giorno 11 apr 2021, alle ore 17:45, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> ha scritto:
> 
> Remember how much hate RMS got in glibc land for something I did?  I
> said I did it out of my own volition, I explained my why I did it, but
> people wouldn't believe he had nothing to do with it! 

It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”. And there was no hate (at least not from my side) only *disappointment* that you used your status to do it even though most of senior developers and maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

Hi Ville,

On April 11, 2021 8:04:07 PM UTC, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> I don't love Jonathan Wakely's idea of forking libstdc++. I would much
> rather not have that fork happen. But I will follow that fork. I know
> him well enough that trying to talk him out of doing the fork is
> unlikely to succeed, we're far beyond the stage where such
> talking-out is on the table.
> [...]
> Bring on the forks. 

I know I'm depicted here as a "concern troll" or as a "RMS fanboy", but I have to admit that
I really appreciate the fork solution proposed by Jonathan.

I agree that calling the fork GCC would be a mess for everybody, but I would appreciate a 
proper fork with a new name because of the clarity it would bring on the table.

You could call it Open Compiler Collection, OCC, or someting like that.


Personally I would consider to keep using GCC and I could contribute my port to the 
GNU project as I planned to do since its beginning.

But I'd expect a more, varied, international and indipendent leadership on the
GNU Compiler Collection.

One more focused with freedom and less with marketing and US-interest and 
moralism, be it economically viable or not.

I even think that in the long run, the two projects could explore different and 
interesting technical paths, and even cooperate as peers.

Or maybe not.

But for what it matters, I would welcome the clarity a fork would bring to the ecosystem.


Sincerely,
the "new talent" you'd never want to attract! :-D


Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr  8, 2021, David Brown <david@westcontrol.com> wrote:

> I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
> actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.

If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying me?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> There have been many posts over the past two weeks [...] based on
> little but veneration.

> Your own emails are always carefully considered

Thanks for confirming it.

Now, you were responding to me, not to the other posters.


As usual among RMS critics (see?, I've made an effort to resist the
unkindness of de-venerators), he, and apparently now me too, are somehow
held responsible for actions of others, just because they seem to
support some position you disagree with.  That's not right.

I wouldn't say people who undersigned a hate letter full of lies have
lied themselves.  Those who have been misled did not lie, even if the
words they honestly believed in were false, whatever it was that got
them to believe them.

Similarly, people who support a position you disagree with are not pawns
in an army of brainless creatures guided by your favorite monster.  They
are independent individuals with very different beliefs and motivations
who, for their own reasons, formulated their own theories as to why
people have fallen for such lies, or used them as levers to promote
actions where other not-so-shocking truths failed before.

Remember how much hate RMS got in glibc land for something I did?  I
said I did it out of my own volition, I explained my why I did it, but
people wouldn't believe he had nothing to do with it!  That's what I'm
talking about.  It's the same undeserved hatred that he got from Nathan
for his assumption that delays had something to do with RMS's
interference.  Even when he explicitly disapproves actions by misguided
supporters, he still gets hate over their actions.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

As in, do you agree to be held responsible for any speech or action by
anyone who happens to be favorable to the libstdc++ fork you are
proposing right now?


I didn't think so.

I hereby invoke the golden rule.


>> If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand
>> exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that
>> into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate.

> Kind debate. Right.

You were addressing me, and I responded to that.

Have *I* been unkind in the debate I'm carrying out with you?

If you wish to lump me together with everyone else to whom you attribute
the same position that I hold, do you acknowledge that I'd be entitled
to hold you to a similar standard, and lump you with the shills and
liars behind a hate letter that failed a decapitation attack, but may
have partially succeeded at a divide-and-conquer attack on our movement?


> the requests to make changes to GCC are coming from outsiders who are only
> too happy to insult GCC devs and derail any "debate".

Some of the voices in favor of making changes have also come from
outsiders to GCC.

Did I miss your objections to their contributing their outsiders'
thoughts, or to their unkindness?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, <oliva@gnu.org> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
> veneration.
>

There have been many posts over the past two weeks suggesting that without
RMS to guide us, GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that nobody has any
authority to decide on the future of GNU projects except RMS (a view also
stated on GNU mailing lists by moderators of those very lists), or other
silly claims that are based on little but veneration. They're not really
based on anything about GCC, just "y u no like RMS?"





> I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
> justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
> movement.
>
> If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over false
> allegations about a person, on occasion of that person rejoining the
> board of an organization that was founded and has always supported the
> project who's still led by that person, that makes the issue personal
> and based on blind faith, though in the opposite sense of veneration.
>

Oh I have other reasons to consider the FSF a dead end too.


> If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand
> exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that
> into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate.
>

Kind debate. Right.

Maybe somebody from the GNU project or the FSF could tell one of their GNU
Maintainers (apparently part of the governance structure of the GNU
project) to stop calling people mad, or rats, or to stop endless off-topic
trolling about communism. There is no kind debate when every other post is
an attack from a troll.

Your own emails are always carefully considered (and carefully skate around
the actual issues people raised) but most of the other voices objecting to
the requests to make changes to GCC are coming from outsiders who are only
too happy to insult GCC devs and derail any "debate".

GCC association with the FSF

[Ville Voutilainen]

>However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project.  That appears
to be a very common misperception.

>The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
independent (unincorporated) organization, with its own separate and
independent governance structure.


>The conversation has supposedly moved on from being centered on the
(very indirect) relationship with RMS to being centered around the
(even more indirect) relationship with the FSF.

>The trigger for the present movements seems to be RMS's reappointment to
the board of directors of the FSF.

>That makes no sense to me.

Really? Well, it makes some amounts of sense to me. See below.


>RMS's closest roles regarding GCC have been of initial developer, leader
of the project that GCC belongs in, and occasional participant in
discussions among the GCC SC, and none of this has changed recently.

>What is the relevance of his reappointment to the board of a separate
organization he's founded, long participated in, and presided for most
of its history, and that has supported both the GNU project at large and
the GNU toolchain specifically, in ways that haven't changed at all, not
when he resigned from the board, not when he was reappointed?!?

>Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?

This is fairly straightforward. FSF is not as separate an organization
as you wish to depict it. It owns the copyright to GCC, and
people associated with it have decided to act as the PR department
of GCC developers.

Multiple maintainers would rather not have that PR department,
as they consider it a PR disaster. They'd rather improve
the PR department, but if that can't be accomplished, another
solution is to disassociate their work from FSF and the PR department.

I don't love Jonathan Wakely's idea of forking libstdc++. I would much
rather not have that fork happen. But I will follow that fork. I know
him well enough that trying to talk him out of doing the fork is
unlikely to succeed, we're far beyond the stage where such
talking-out is on the table.

This, of course, allows us to actually _see_ whether the predictions
of doom and gloom will materialize if FSF and RMS are no longer
associated with the work of various GCC developers.

It also allows us to see how viable the origin of the fork is, when
there sure are people suggesting that it can be lead by non-developers,
but fair amounts of developers will just go elsewhere.

If you wish to hear my wild guesses on those, they are
a) that the doom and gloom will not materialize
b) the origin of the fork will not remain viable.

Bring on the forks. We have ruminated on this long enough,
and that seems like a waste of bandwidth. The messages
the various developers are conveying are not getting through,
or are sinking into an abyss of neverending discussions about
something completely different from what the developers
are saying.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

Jonathan,

It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
veneration.

I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
movement.

If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over false
allegations about a person, on occasion of that person rejoining the
board of an organization that was founded and has always supported the
project who's still led by that person, that makes the issue personal
and based on blind faith, though in the opposite sense of veneration.

If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand
exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that
into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 16:56 David Brown, wrote:

>
> The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
> accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name.  If the
> FSF keep their own "gcc" project, then calling the new fork "gcc" as
> well would cause confusion.


Packagers for Linux distros and BSD ports collections (and similar like
MinGW distros) are unlikely to be confused for long.

The GNU project can have the "GNU C Compiler" name, as far as I'm
concerned. The "GNU Compiler Collection" name dates from the time when EGCS
replaced the original GCC so I would argue that the FSF couldn't claim
ownership of a new twist on it like "GCC Compiler Collection".

And Apple already got away with shipping clang as the "gcc" and "g++"
executables (albeit causing much confusion) so even if the project changed
name, the shipped products wouldn't need to.

Your point is valid, but I've been thinking about the practicalities a lot.
I still think losing the gcc.gnu.org DNS records would be the biggest
drawback.


  And calling it something else would also
> confuse people - many would use the FSF gcc because of its name, not
> realising that there is a better fork.  You can see that in the
> OpenOffice / LibreOffice split - I think a large proportion of people
> downloading OpenOffice do so without realising that LibreOffice exists
> and is way ahead of it on features.
>

Only a small minority download GCC (we don't provide binaries for a start,
so most people use the binary package from their OS, or a semi-automated
build like portage or MacPorts).

So I'm not terribly concerned about that problem.


> A fork may be unavoidable in the end, but a more diplomatic change of
> structure would have many advantages if it can be achieved.
>

I would be very happy if the FSF took that view and let us walk away. If
not, I don't think it's a huge problem.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 11/04/2021 17:06, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>

>>
>> FWIW, again speaking personally, I would be in favour of joining a fork.[*]
>>
> 
> Glad to hear it :-)
> 
> I will be forking, alone if necessary, but I've already been told by a few
> people I won't be alone.
> 

The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name.  If the
FSF keep their own "gcc" project, then calling the new fork "gcc" as
well would cause confusion.  And calling it something else would also
confuse people - many would use the FSF gcc because of its name, not
realising that there is a better fork.  You can see that in the
OpenOffice / LibreOffice split - I think a large proportion of people
downloading OpenOffice do so without realising that LibreOffice exists
and is way ahead of it on features.

A fork may be unavoidable in the end, but a more diplomatic change of
structure would have many advantages if it can be achieved.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

>
>
> I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassociating
> itself” from the FSF or from the GNU project.  No-one can force the FSF or
> the GNU project to drop GCC (and I don't think anyone's trying to make it
> do that).  I think what we're really talking about is whether there should
> be a fork.


There doesn't *have* to be a fork. If GCC walked away from GNU, the GNU
system could continue to use GCC with no actual input to it, just like it
uses the Linux kernel (except for a statistically insignificant number of
GNU/Hurd systems). I have no objection to the FSF using my GCC work (they
are free to do so, like all users are, thanks to the excellent GPL). But I
no longer want to be required to give them the copyright or ownership of
that work.

But for various reasons being passive consumers of a non-FSF GCC probably
wouldn't be popular, so a fork may be for the best.



>
> FWIW, again speaking personally, I would be in favour of joining a fork.[*]
>

Glad to hear it :-)

I will be forking, alone if necessary, but I've already been told by a few
people I won't be alone.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
>> always the direction in which it *should* go.  
> 
> I agree.  And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
> an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.
> 
>> To give just one small practical example, I'm told (by people who are more
>> familiar with GCC internals than I) that it is not feasible with today's
>> GCC to port to backends which have a small number of registers.
> 
> [Finally, a technical discussion in this thread!]
> 
> It never really has been.  Maybe it's not even possible now (I don't
> know), but if you tried it in the past the results would never have
> been very good.  Almost all multi-backend systems operate by having
> very large numbers of expressions at all levels, which you gradually
> lower to actual registers.  This works quite well if you have enough
> registers to hold the high-usage expressions in them, but when you
> have high register pressure, the model breaks down completely.
> Although the situation may well have gotten worse in recent versions
> that I'm not familiar with, I'd say that GCC was probably doing a
> *better* job with a small number of registers in more recent versions
> than in older ones: "reload" was particularly bad when there was high
> register pressure.
> 
> When your main constraint is register pressure, in order to get
> high-quality results, I think you almost have to change the entire
> philosophy of compilation, to the point I think where you have an
> almost entirely different compilation chain for such machines.
> 

Low register count cpu designs have been out of fashion for quite some
time now (perhaps precisely because they are not a good fit for common
compiler strategies).  They are mostly found in older families, such as
the 8-bit CISC designs in older microcontrollers (8051, PIC, COP8, 6502,
etc.).  And you are absolutely right that you need a different way of
thinking in order to get the best out of such chips - low register count
is only one aspect.  Other issues are few or no flexible pointer
registers, no "SP + offset" addressing modes for efficient parameters or
stack frames, banked ram and code blocks, and multiple separate address
spaces.  Good toolchains for such devices need to work in a very
different way, and typically encompass compilation, assembling and
linking in one "omniscient" build so that variables, parameters, etc.,
can be placed statically in ways that minimise banking and maximise
reuse, based on lifetime analysis of the whole program.

This would be a massively different way of working from how gcc does
things now, and given that such devices are very much on the decline
(when 32-bit ARM microcontrollers can be bought for 30 cents, smaller
and cheaper cpu cores are rarely the right choice for a new design), it
would not make sense to spend the effort supporting them in gcc.  There
is, after all, quite a solid GPL'ed compiler toolchain for such devices
at <http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/>.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david@westcontrol.com>
> To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >    It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> >    Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
> >    name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
> >
> > Then it would not longer be GCC.  It would be something different.
> > The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> > GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> > cost of software freedom.  Commercial interessts are often at odds
> > with software freedom as well.  This is one of the many reasons why
> > the GNU project is entierly volunteer based.
> >
>
> It is decades since gcc has been /just/ a free compiler for the GNU
> system.  That is still an important role, of course, but the compiler's
> use has vastly outgrown that area.  The same applies to most of the GNU
> projects.
>
> And while I agree that commercial interests are /sometimes/ at odds with
> free software, they are also essential for it - GNU would never have
> existed without commercial software, and most or all of its projects
> would have languished without commercial interest.

Commercial interests are not at odds, provided some rules are followed

> (Look, for example,
> at the Hurd project - it is absolutely critical to the concept of having
> a complete software system using only free software, but it is of almost
> no commercial interest to anyone.  And thus it has had negligible
> progress.)
>
> Like it or not, money is essential to the way the world works, and
> commercial interests are unavoidable.  You can make them work for you
> while keeping the values and ideals you hold dear (such as by having
> volunteers for development, with contributions and leadership
> appointments being personal, while letting a commercial organisation pay
> your wages).  Commercial interests are generally only a problem if you
> let them be a problem.

As aspirations grow, money is an enabling process.  A tool created to simplify transactions.  And things are evolving so that transactions become digital,
where money in the traditional sense does not exist.  The problem is when money
becomes a goal by itself.

To be successful, we need the cooperation of many forces present in our
surroundings, including our employers or people who do business with us.

> > But I'd hope that we can avoid words like "fanaticism", "childish",
> > "cultish" simply because of disagreement in philosophies or continuing
> > to spread obvious misunderstandings of what someone wrote, it is not
> > constructive and only causes unnsesescary agitation.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> always the direction in which it *should* go.  

I agree.  And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.

> To give just one small practical example, I'm told (by people who are more
> familiar with GCC internals than I) that it is not feasible with today's
> GCC to port to backends which have a small number of registers.

[Finally, a technical discussion in this thread!]

It never really has been.  Maybe it's not even possible now (I don't
know), but if you tried it in the past the results would never have
been very good.  Almost all multi-backend systems operate by having
very large numbers of expressions at all levels, which you gradually
lower to actual registers.  This works quite well if you have enough
registers to hold the high-usage expressions in them, but when you
have high register pressure, the model breaks down completely.
Although the situation may well have gotten worse in recent versions
that I'm not familiar with, I'd say that GCC was probably doing a
*better* job with a small number of registers in more recent versions
than in older ones: "reload" was particularly bad when there was high
register pressure.

When your main constraint is register pressure, in order to get
high-quality results, I think you almost have to change the entire
philosophy of compilation, to the point I think where you have an
almost entirely different compilation chain for such machines.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:30:48AM -0400, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
     > > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
     > > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
     > > and contributing.
     > 
     > GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
     > freedom for *users* is the priority.  Assigning *higher* importance to
     > developers' preferences is *not* a position I share.
     
     I think there's a difference between philosophy and practicality here.
     Sure, the importance of work done by different developers, measured on
     the scale of advancing the goals of the Free Software movement, is
     different for each.  But what actually advances a project (which can
     be viewed as "deciding [its] direction") is what work developers
     choose to do, not the importance of each piece of work on that metric.

I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
always the direction in which it *should* go.  I conceed that the converse
is also true:  Technical experts are very useful for putting the brakes on
Joe Average User's crazy ideas when they are doomed to failure from the outset.

     So I certainly agree with what you said above, but don't think that
     changes the reality that it's ultimately what developers choose to
     work on that most affects the direction of a project.

That indeed is often the reality, but equally as often *not* what is desired.
To give just one small practical example, I'm told (by people who are more
familiar with GCC internals than I) that it is not feasible with today's
GCC to port to backends which have a small number of registers.   This has
meant that whole familys of CPUs work only with proprietary compilers.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> Then it would not longer be GCC.  It would be something different.
> The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> cost of software freedom.

Certainly that was its initial intent, but I'd argue that at this
point, the main value of GCC to the Free Software movement is that its
extensive use outside of the GNU system makes people aware of the
movement and of the quality of its software.

> Commercial interessts are often at odds with software freedom as
> well.  This is one of the many reasons why the GNU project is
> entierly volunteer based.

Although that's true, I strongly suspect that the majority of actual
work done on GCC is commercially funded.

> But I'd hope that we can avoid words like "fanaticism", "childish",
> "cultish" simply because of disagreement in philosophies or continuing
> to spread obvious misunderstandings of what someone wrote, it is not
> constructive and only causes unnsesescary agitation.

Agreed!

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 14:59 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC -
> technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually
> involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority.  Assigning *higher* importance to
> developers' preferences is *not* a position I share.
>


Freedom for users is provided by the licences of the GCC code. Any
particular form of leadership or veneration of the project founder is not
required for that be true. Unless maybe I'm still misreading the four
freedoms, or maybe they are not a proper description of the principles.
Maybe the four freedoms need to be corrected to add this implicit
requirement that association with a particular group is necessary. Could
you look into that please, Alex?

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner" <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
> To: dimech@gmx.com
> Cc: david.brown@hesbynett.no, gcc@gnu.org, rodgert@appliantology.com
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> > >
> > > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> > > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
> >
> > If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which
> > seems to me that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic),
> > people would be discouraged to serve on it.
>
> I'm sorry, what is it that you think that the "community" (whatever
> that is) is demanding too much of?

Some have been saying that leaders are representatives of the whole
free software users, and if mistakes happen, they would tarnish everybody.
And then a situation similar to this one starts all over again.

I would say that it is the organisers of events that have such responsibility.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
>    Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
>    name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
> 
> Then it would not longer be GCC.  It would be something different.
> The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> cost of software freedom.  Commercial interessts are often at odds
> with software freedom as well.  This is one of the many reasons why
> the GNU project is entierly volunteer based.
> 

It is decades since gcc has been /just/ a free compiler for the GNU
system.  That is still an important role, of course, but the compiler's
use has vastly outgrown that area.  The same applies to most of the GNU
projects.

And while I agree that commercial interests are /sometimes/ at odds with
free software, they are also essential for it - GNU would never have
existed without commercial software, and most or all of its projects
would have languished without commercial interest.  (Look, for example,
at the Hurd project - it is absolutely critical to the concept of having
a complete software system using only free software, but it is of almost
no commercial interest to anyone.  And thus it has had negligible
progress.)

Like it or not, money is essential to the way the world works, and
commercial interests are unavoidable.  You can make them work for you
while keeping the values and ideals you hold dear (such as by having
volunteers for development, with contributions and leadership
appointments being personal, while letting a commercial organisation pay
your wages).  Commercial interests are generally only a problem if you
let them be a problem.

> But I'd hope that we can avoid words like "fanaticism", "childish",
> "cultish" simply because of disagreement in philosophies or continuing
> to spread obvious misunderstandings of what someone wrote, it is not
> constructive and only causes unnsesescary agitation.
> 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 13:31 John Darrington wrote:

>
> For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly
> in
> a major role.   I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few
> days
> ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.
> So
> either I subscribed to this list many years ago and it has been dormant
> until
> recently or someone subscribed me just recently.
>

I don't know who changed the Cc from gcc@gcc.gnu.org to gcc@gnu.org but I
think they're the same destination.
You can check the archives, the list has been highly active for decades.
Maybe somebody subscribed you to help brigade this list. If you don't want
the mails, the mail headers have unsubscribe instructions, and there's a
form at https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Sandiford]

[ Like many others who have posted to this thread, I've contributed
  to GCC at various times as a hobby and at other times as a paid
  employee.  Here I'm speaking as a personal contributor, not on
  behalf of my current employer. ]

I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassociating
itself” from the FSF or from the GNU project.  No-one can force the FSF or
the GNU project to drop GCC (and I don't think anyone's trying to make it
do that).  I think what we're really talking about is whether there should
be a fork.  In some ways that would be like egcs, although perhaps this time
it would be a clean break, without intending the fork to “rejoin” GNU later.

If the fork takes the current gcc.gnu.org infrastructure with it,
the GNU project would have to maintain its version of GCC elsewhere.
But that would be a minor barrier at most.  The likelihood is that there
would be two versions of GCC, which for want of better terms I'll call
“FSF GCC” and “new GCC”.  If FSF GCC does continue as a project in any
meaningful sense, new GCC would be able to cherry-pick useful contributions
from FSF GCC.  Cherry-picking in the opposite direction would also be
technically and legally possible, but would presumably be rejected on
principle by whoever the new FSF GCC maintainers turn out to be (not least
because “new GCC” commits would not be FSF copyright).

This should also satisfy those who believe that only an FSF-copyright
GCC is trustworthy.  People who only trust the FSF can contribute to
and use “FSF GCC” and ignore “new GCC”.

So I think the question becomes: how many GCC developers and organisations
are willing to agree to follow the fork rather than stick with FSF GCC?
Does anyone have any suggestions for a good procedure for testing the
level of support?  I don't think this mailing list is it.

(It's ironic that the process of answering that question shows how
misplaced a lot of the comments about the SC were.  GCC is fundamentally
a developer/contributor-led project, so even an important decision like
this will be made by developers/contributors rather than the SC.)

FWIW, again speaking personally, I would be in favour of joining a fork.[*]

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> > non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> > work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> > copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> > death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> > the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.
>
> Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
> copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
> it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
> just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
> individual copyright holder on their own.

It sounds like it could be the worst of both worlds in some ways though.
There would no longer be a single entity that could relicense the code,
if that became necessary for any reason, yet we would still require all
contributors to go through the off-putting process of assigning copyright.

I think it would be better to have voluntary aggregation of copyright
(for those in a position to offer it) while also allowing contributors
to retain copyright if they prefer.  If enough regular contributors
agree to pool copyright then that should be enough.

> If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
> Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
> projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
>
> I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
> in any action taken on behave of the collective:
> https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf

I'm not familiar with this system, but yeah, I agree that it looks on the
face of it like a good approach, provided that it's strictly voluntary.

Thanks,
Richard


[*] Not that anyone should care or is likely to care, but for the record,
    my reasons are:

    The FSF and the GNU project have had a key historical role in developing
    and promoting free software as a concept.  But history is one thing and
    the future is another.  Due to the success of the early advocacy work,
    free software now exists as a principle independently of the FSF and
    the GNU project.  And the FSF has provided copyleft licenses that have
    stood the test of time.  So like others have said, the question for
    the future is: do we as contributors gain anything by having any new
    work we do be owned by the FSF and associated with the GNU project?

    I think the recent developments, as well as the messages in this
    email thread that supposedly give reasons for sticking with GNU,
    have shown what a tarnished brand the GNU project has become.
    Like others have said, it's hard to escape the feeling that it's as
    much about the cult of the founder as it is about the principle of
    free software.  And I think the thread has also shown that even
    people very familiar with the FSF and GNU project fundamentally
    misunderstand how GCC development currently works and how closely
    tied to the GNU project current GCC development really is.  I think
    a fork would help to clarify the situation.

    There's undeniably a close tie between GCC and sibling projects in
    the “GNU toolchain”: glibc, binutils and gdb.  But those GNU projects
    are all in the sourceware.org stable and could in principle fork at
    the same time.  In the 20+ years I've been working on the project,
    there has been at most a very loose link between GCC and other parts
    of the GNU project besides those three.

    So having the name “GNU” attached to GCC development in the last 20
    years or so has felt a bit like having the Union flag in the upper
    left corner of the Australian flag.  It reflects an important part
    of the project's history, but it's not necessarily an important part
    of what the project is today.  Life working on a GCC fork should be
    very much like the status quo, just without the increasingly toxic
    association.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
   Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
   name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.

Then it would not longer be GCC.  It would be something different.
The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
cost of software freedom.  Commercial interessts are often at odds
with software freedom as well.  This is one of the many reasons why
the GNU project is entierly volunteer based.

But I'd hope that we can avoid words like "fanaticism", "childish",
"cultish" simply because of disagreement in philosophies or continuing
to spread obvious misunderstandings of what someone wrote, it is not
constructive and only causes unnsesescary agitation.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with
> something like a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be
> another free software project's contributor (as is my case).

I suspect that's not true.  It certainly wasn't true when more major
large companies used GCC to compile their products and I doubt it's even
true now when many have switched to other compilers.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
> > and contributing.
> 
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority.  Assigning *higher* importance to
> developers' preferences is *not* a position I share.

I think there's a difference between philosophy and practicality here.
Sure, the importance of work done by different developers, measured on
the scale of advancing the goals of the Free Software movement, is
different for each.  But what actually advances a project (which can
be viewed as "deciding [its] direction") is what work developers
choose to do, not the importance of each piece of work on that metric.
So I certainly agree with what you said above, but don't think that
changes the reality that it's ultimately what developers choose to
work on that most affects the direction of a project.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Frosku]

On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 2:23 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority. Assigning *higher* importance to
> developers' preferences is *not* a position I share.

I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with something like
a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be another free software project's
contributor (as is my case).

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects have
> always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
> Contributors are exactly that.  They offer *contributions* - the
> very meaning of the word implies there is no expectation of anything
> in return.  Obviously I hope all contributors *do* get some
> satisfaction and maybe even some tangible benefit.  But
> contributions are not to be seen as a means to gain control of the
> project at a high level.

I agree with most of that, but all *actual* changes to a project are done
by contributors.  If somebody makes a "high level decision" to do a certain
thing to GCC, but no contributor steps up to do that thing, it won't get
done.  Conversely, if some contributor decided to do some thing (e.g., add
an optimization) that nobody made a "high level decision" to do, that
thing *will* get done, since it's unusual to reject such contributions,
assuming they're technically sound.

So I think that the bulk of the "power", from a practical standpoint, is
in the hands of the contributors, not some high-level group.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:

> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
> and contributing.

GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
freedom for *users* is the priority.  Assigning *higher* importance to
developers' preferences is *not* a position I share.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
> and contributing.

I agree, but I'm not clear if you're claiming that that is or is not
currently the case.  I believe it is.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> >
> > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
> 
> If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which
> seems to me that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic),
> people would be discouraged to serve on it.

I'm sorry, what is it that you think that the "community" (whatever
that is) is demanding too much of?

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:05 AM
> From: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
> To: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald@pfeifer.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
>      There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
>      to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike
>      David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.
>
> For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly in
> a major role.   I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few days
> ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.  So
> either I subscribed to this list many years ago and it has been dormant until
> recently or someone subscribed me just recently.
>
>      When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
>      and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
>      and contributing.
>
> I disagree.  The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects
> have always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
> Contributors are exactly that.  They offer *contributions* - the very meaning
> of the word implies there is no expectation of anything in return.  Obviously
> I hope all contributors *do* get some satisfaction and maybe even some tangible
> benefit.  But contributions are not to be seen as a means  to gain control of
> the project at a high level.
>
> J'

There are many instances of project maintainers who are not the major
contributors, but are very capable of leading their project.

Many fail to understand the benefits of knowing the role maintainers
play in alleviating or conquering some of the current challenges that
interdisciplinary projects face.  Although I agree that they need to
possess technical experience too.  I see many MBAs trying to parachute
in as a leader without having worked their way up.

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

     There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little 
     to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike 
     David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.

For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly in
a major role.   I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few days
ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.  So
either I subscribed to this list many years ago and it has been dormant until
recently or someone subscribed me just recently.
     
     When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
     and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
     and contributing.
     
I disagree.  The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects
have always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
Contributors are exactly that.  They offer *contributions* - the very meaning
of the word implies there is no expectation of anything in return.  Obviously
I hope all contributors *do* get some satisfaction and maybe even some tangible
benefit.  But contributions are not to be seen as a means  to gain control of
the project at a high level.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Please move these off-topic discussions somewhere else, people are
already annoyed and angry as it is -- on both sides!

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are 
> stored on their corporate servers.

You keep making statements which are simply wrong.

None of my GCC-related e-mails touch the servers of my employer,
nor servers under the control of my employer, nor servers running
one of my employer's products.

Membership in the steering committee is personal, not related to
the respective employeers, and transcends employment.

Oh, and FWIW: my employer legally is not even allowed to access 
my work mailbox.

> Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only 
> credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.

Please stop spreading FUD and insulting steering committee members.

Gerald

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> GCC is clearly an US-only project.

This is simply incorrect.

> A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).

As is this.

> This is not intended as an insult.
> It's just a fact.

Ex falso quodlibet.

Gerald

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.

There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little 
to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike 
David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.

We generally welcome contributions - technical and otherwise.

When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical 
and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved 
and contributing.

(And, for the record, I have no doubt that all of the other contributors
who have spoken up care a lot about free software and the future of GCC
in that context. That does not necessarily require the FSF, though.)

Gerald

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 8:10 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner" <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
> To: rodgert@appliantology.com
> Cc: david.brown@hesbynett.no, dimech@gmx.com, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
>
> I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.

If the community makes it too hard by demanding too much (which seems to me
that it is bending towards the merely bureaucratic), people would be discouraged
to serve on it.

Years ago I proposed Committee Refreshments and Committee Rotations
for School Governing Bodies in the United Kingdom, which was supported
by the Department for Education and Skills of the UK Government that
existed until 2007.  A strategy that can potentially resolve a lot of
problems within the free software community.

I also suggest the concept of logrolling with laid down safeguards first
applied to legislation by US Congressman David Crockett in about 1835.
This does have benefits in direct democracies.

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 21:10 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > It is called "actions have consequences".
>
> FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions
> as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person?
>
> I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already
> disclaimed the false accusations in the hateful letter, but others keep
> on resorting to them as if they were true and relevant.
>

The subject of this thread was *supposed* to have changed to be about GNU
and the FSF and whether it benefits GCC to be linked to them, not about RMS.

The fact that some people insist on seeing that question as another attack
on RMS is not helpful, and is part of the problem with being linked to the
cult of GNU. We can't question whether FSF benefits GCC without being
reminded that RMS started the project, and so he must be involved.

I still can't find where in the four freedoms it says anything about
venerating the project leader.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:52 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" <giacomo@tesio.it>
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Pankaj Jangid" <pankaj@codeisgreat.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D
> >
> > Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like
> > Nathan.
> > Just not to everybody else.
> >
>
> I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and
> standard library, and like Nathan, I work to help make that the case. It
> is certainly true I don't have a lot of concern for the concerns of
> those, whose only apparent contribution to the discussion is 'oooh evil
> bad bigcorp's subverting mah compiler. I will go away now'.

Companies have serious problems right now.  The internet used to run
as a US Benign Dictatorship, under the assumption that the US was generally
behaving in the world's best interest.  That trust has been lost.  If you are
someone in some country somewhere, and you hear that the NSA is getting a copy
of everything.  And IBM and Google have a Press Release saying that they
have fixed a problem.  Do you believe it?  I sure don't.  And many others don't,
and for good reasons.  I also think that will be a bunch of other countries
that will do way worse than what the United States has done.  If we are against
national means of intelligence, all bets are off.  This is compounded by the fact
that attack in much easier than defense.  I don't think that's what we are trying
to defend against.  We are trying to defend against bulk collection.

But I tend to be optimistic, than humanity as a species tend to solve these problems.
It might take one or a few generations.  We might have some terrible world wars
while we're solving it.  But till now we have managed to have more freedom,
more rights, more liberty, century by century.

People have to understand that companies and governments are not made of magic, that
they are not breaking systems to anywhere near the extent that we thought they were.
This is the most important conclusion that can be taken from Snowden's documents.
The reality in that there are many things we can do to make ourselves much more secure.
I might have some reservations about Nathan and others regarding the RMS debate, but
not that many of them are likely to be consciously injecting malicious code
or introducing vulnerabilities.

If business leaders change the way they look at life, instead of making a whole lot
of money and then contributing to some cause, they can structure their business
in such a way that every customer is in some way a partner with them.

However if companies and governments try to conquer people, they will have to keep
sitting on top of their head, and they will do everything to make the life of business
leaders miserable.

Traditionally, military leaders were the most powerful people.  In the last hundred
years, political leaders were the most powerful.  But now and in the future, economic leaders will be the most powerful.

We have to start working with economic leaders to make a difference in the way they
make decisions, and in the way they conduct their businesses.   This is being done,
but is being done very discreetly because it is something that today cannot be
handled publicly.

> > Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible
> > no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.
> >
> > But I'm a "concern troll", right?
> >
> > I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)
> >
>
> Indeed.
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.

The SC is the "GNU maintainer" for GCC.  The GNU project has oversight on
the maintainers of every GNU project, including GCC.  The change to the
web page didn't affect that: RMS still has oversight on the SC's
decisions to some extent, just like he does over all GNU projects.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?

I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

> It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D
> 
> Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like 
> Nathan.
> Just not to everybody else.
> 

I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and 
standard library, and like Nathan, I work to help make that the case. It 
is certainly true I don't have a lot of concern for the concerns of 
those, whose only apparent contribution to the discussion is 'oooh evil 
bad bigcorp's subverting mah compiler. I will go away now'.

> Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible 
> no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.
> 
> But I'm a "concern troll", right?
> 
> I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)
> 

Indeed.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> It is called "actions have consequences".

FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions
as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person?

I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already
disclaimed the false accusations in the hateful letter, but others keep
on resorting to them as if they were true and relevant.


Ironically, those who may have legitimate claims about difficulties in
dealing with RMS and who, for their position in the subproject, might
have to interact with him are not the ones engaging in disrespectful
conversations with users and potential contributors, offering them a far
worse amount of toxicity than anything that could be honestly attributed
to RMS, rather than setting a good example of kind and respectful
dissent for those who've just started participating in our community.


We've already seen that Nathan's frustration with RMS for supposedly
holding up a project he wanted to contribute was misdirected.  People
from neighboring projects, if willing to look honestly into the matters,
would find out that a lot of frustration misdirected at RMS is also
motivated by faulty assumptions.

That, plus the tiresome repeating of unfounded allegations and hearsay
mistaken as evidence, by a few loud individuals, makes for strong cases
of intolerance, witch hunting and scapegoating.

Such unkindness and intolerance do not belong in communities that wish
to be welcoming to contributors and users alike.


Responsibility that might normally be assigned to positions of
authority, and that AFAICT is attributed to Chief GNUisance, is IMHO a
mistake.

Chief GNUisance is not a position of authority over volunteers.  That
would be (-: gnonsense :-) , a deep misunderstanding of the dynamics at
play.  It's rather a position of purpose setting, strategic steering and
policy driving for the project as a whole.  It's not one of policing
contributor's thoughts or behaviors.  That requires authority over
individuals, which Chief GNUisance doesn't have.

If we find undesirable behaviors within our subprojects, we shouldn't
expect Chief GNUisance to send GNU Kindness Police to address it.
There's no such authority, no such power.

We are, rather, free and expected to behave like kind grownups, and
respectfully resolve issues among ourselves, according to policies set
for the project as a whole and for the subproject, if any.  Sort of like
some are trying to do to RMS, just with kindness and respect, and
directing it at someone who's actually engaging in misbehavior among us.


The rationale presented to justify a separation from any organization in
which RMS is involved, on the grounds that a lot of people would find
such a relationship intolerable, is questionable in the face of the
massive support for RMS's return to the FSF board, vs the hate letter
than is such a failure that they now even refuse to apply withdrawals
from undersigners who learned better.

If public image and community alignment were the issue, it would seem
like separation from all things RMS would bring onto us far more
community repproach and distrust than keeping things as they are.

Conversely, such a hate campaign, the false allegations, and the very
vocal and explicit intolerance to symptoms of the neurodiverse condition
of the target do the very opposite of signaling a welcome and safe
space, presented as rationale for these behaviors.

Right now I couldn't honestly recommend GCC as a welcoming or even as a
respectful community, and none of the unwelcoming and intolerant
behavior can be attributed to the favorite scapegoat.

Since some holders of opposing positions haven't been treating each
other kindly or respectfully, and it doesn't seem to me that holders of
any positions have made any progress in convincing holders of different
positions recently, may I suggest that we drop this hateful discussion,
or that participants at least bring the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines back to mind?

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "Pankaj Jangid" <pankaj@codeisgreat.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >
> > I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
> > just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends
> > on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people
> > are using it.
> >
>
> I think it is useful to consider why people use gcc - I agree that
> without users, there would be no project.
>
> So why /do/ people use it?  I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> "it's the only compiler that will do the job".  For a lot of important
> software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing.  Another big
> reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case
> for Linux systems.  In the embedded development world (where I work),
> the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to
> download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it
> is more often gcc than not.  You use gcc because that is the standard,
> not from choice.
>
> For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so?  I'd guess
> being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher
> than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free
> software" and "open source software".  (For me, a major reason is that
> the same compiler supports a wide range of targets.  That, and that gcc
> is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.)
>
> I suspect that only a very small (but not zero) proportion of gcc users
> care that the project is part of GNU and under the FSF.  I suspect that
> a larger proportion would start caring if they felt (rightly or wrongly)
> that at the top of the hierarchy was a misogynist who patronises and
> sexually harasses women.
>
> (As always, this is just my opinion.)

I use it because I can do the numerical computations for a given task.
Because it is free software I can work unhindered.  RMS could have been
anybody with any type of personality, I would still use it.  It is not
about any qualms about the behaviour of the people who worked on it.
I could also continue the work even after I change employment status
or stop working with particular groups.

But I have to say that there was tremendous progress during the
first eight years of the Gnu Project, and cost practically nothing.
But the advance since then has not been very great.  Another problem
is that there are not many people working on applications.  In mathematics,
for instance, I did not find people currently in the hacking community who
could contribute much.  Additionally, the work is too advanced even for
mathematicians working at undergraduate level.  Those working at graduate
level customarily restrict the code, because principal investigators
customarily compete with their peers by trampling on others and acting nasty.

In a lot of ways, the free software community works better.  Provided, people
are able to keep their interactions within reason, rather than putting too many
demands on each other.  The original hacking spirit has been eroding through
the years, particularly post-2008.

People should start organising things with RMS, if they want to see how good
then really are in making things better.   Rather than limiting themselves
with hacking,  people should try to organise things together with governmental
bodies in various countries.  Organisers will quickly figure out the real
difficulties that come up, and learn from their mistakes to do a better job.

Remembering my first year, I thought I did my homework and done a great job.
In the end I found out that I blew it.  I was frustrated, completely frustrated.

I had to correct my mistakes.  The next few years, I started to introspect and
emphasise in order to correct my mistakes.  I am still making mistakes and it is difficult.

Regards

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:14 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> <...snip...>
>
> > If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
> > wonderfully.  If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
> > people act nasty.  That's how it is.
>
> This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much created that
> unpleasant atmosphere full
> of people acting nasty, and a few decades on, some people, notably those
> that do significant
> amounts of work on a project he may have been part of two decades ago,
> no longer want any kind
> of association between their work product and the toxic environment of
> 'people acting nasty'
> that he (for a multitude of reasons) engenders.
>
> We are done here.

Would that not have been the job of the organisers?  Have organised
meetings with Richard, including with governmental bodies and
things progressed decently.  Should people have been wronged, in small
ways or big ones, many countries provide recourse for that.

How it is that many want the Gnu Tag he build.  One can simply continue
the work and have a website or some other way for distribution.  I
frequently do that, make software without the Gnu Association.
Gnu could be better with me, but I left the decision for RMS on whether
he wanted new types of projects that were not port of Gnu at the time.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> 
> I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
> just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends
> on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people
> are using it.
> 

I think it is useful to consider why people use gcc - I agree that
without users, there would be no project.

So why /do/ people use it?  I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
"it's the only compiler that will do the job".  For a lot of important
software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing.  Another big
reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is commonly the case
for Linux systems.  In the embedded development world (where I work),
the normal practice for getting a toolchain for a microcontroller is to
download an IDE and toolchain from the manufacturer - and these days it
is more often gcc than not.  You use gcc because that is the standard,
not from choice.

For those that actively /choose/ gcc, why do they do so?  I'd guess
being convenient, well-known and free (as in beer) come a lot higher
than the details of the licence, or the difference between "free
software" and "open source software".  (For me, a major reason is that
the same compiler supports a wide range of targets.  That, and that gcc
is technically a better compiler for my needs than any alternatives.)

I suspect that only a very small (but not zero) proportion of gcc users
care that the project is part of GNU and under the FSF.  I suspect that
a larger proportion would start caring if they felt (rightly or wrongly)
that at the top of the hierarchy was a misogynist who patronises and
sexually harasses women.

(As always, this is just my opinion.)

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote:

<...snip...>

> If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
> wonderfully.  If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
> people act nasty.  That's how it is.

This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much created that 
unpleasant atmosphere full
of people acting nasty, and a few decades on, some people, notably those 
that do significant
amounts of work on a project he may have been part of two decades ago, 
no longer want any kind
of association between their work product and the toxic environment of 
'people acting nasty'
that he (for a multitude of reasons) engenders.

We are done here.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" <giacomo@tesio.it>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pankaj Jangid" <pankaj@codeisgreat.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D
>
> Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan.
> Just not to everybody else.
>
>
> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
>
> And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share your opinion.
> You can't argue in merit, so you insult me personally.
> I'm fine with this: it says a lot about you and nothing about me.

Welcome to the club, friend. ;)

> In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are stored on their corporate servers.
> And among such corporations are IBM and Google.
>
> And you pretend it's all fine.
>
>
> Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.
>
> But I'm a "concern troll", right?
>
>
> I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)

It's easier than fixing the world economies for sure.

> Giacomo
>
>
> On April 10, 2021 3:04:22 PM UTC, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com> wrote:
> > On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, <pankaj@codeisgreat.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > >
> > > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control
> > they
> > > have over GCC.
> > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > > does.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
> >
> > They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf
> > of
> > their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea
> > that
> > the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any
> > more
> > than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously
> > worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense
> > concerns
> > to
> > derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to
> > a
> > new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC.
> >
> > Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:59 AM
> From: "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>, "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org, "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > 
> > > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your
> > > > missives 
> > > > on
> > > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> > > Aleksandr
> > > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> > > Hemingway,
> > > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> > > latter
> > > of course!
> > 
> > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > anything 
> > of value
> > to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> 
> Thomas, please don't feed the troll.
> Hope this is constructive
 
Yes, it is better.

Regards
Christopher 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it?  :-D

Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan.
Just not to everybody else.


But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.

And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't share your opinion.
You can't argue in merit, so you insult me personally.
I'm fine with this: it says a lot about you and nothing about me.


In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are stored on their corporate servers.
And among such corporations are IBM and Google.

And you pretend it's all fine.


Yet I only asked to fix the Steering Committee AFTER the only credible no-profit protecting free software (FSF) was removed.

But I'm a "concern troll", right?


I think everybody can see who is who. ;-)


Giacomo


On April 10, 2021 3:04:22 PM UTC, Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com> wrote:
> On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control
> they
> > have over GCC.
> > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > does.
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html
> 
> They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf
> of
> their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea 
> that
> the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any 
> more
> than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously
> worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense
> concerns 
> to
> derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to
> a
> new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC.
> 
> Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your
> > > missives 
> > > on
> > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.

[...]

> On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> > Aleksandr
> > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> > Hemingway,
> > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> > latter
> > of course!
> 
> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> anything 
> of value
> to the discussion of GCC governance then?

Thomas, please don't feed the troll.

Hope this is constructive
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:17 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> >> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives 
> >> on
> >> this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.
> 
> > I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any 
> > value
> > from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make 
> > assumptions
> > about things that you do not know. The moment you assume that you know 
> > because
> > of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep. It is my wish and my 
> > blessing
> > that every human being has their intelligence awake.
> 
> On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
> 
> >> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and 
> >> wanting
> >> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of 
> >> the
> >> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has 
> >> he
> >> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
> >> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
> >> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think 
> >> are
> >> important.
> > If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was 
> > mostly
> > crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
> > Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they 
> > managed
> > to do great things.
> > 
> > So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
> > certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
> > a program as you wish, for any purpose".
> > 
> > Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> > Aleksandr
> > Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> > Hemingway,
> > Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> > latter
> > of course!
> 
> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything 
> of value
> to the discussion of GCC governance then?

There are many instances when one has to work with people, even though 
one does not personally like them.  I have worked with others in the
Free Software Community that have placed themselves on the opposite side
of the debate.  And have no intention of stopping them working.

I also worked with others, including MEPs in Brussels, etc.  There's no
way out of it.  Eventually, one has to get out of bed and face the world.

Irrespective of the attitudes that we take on what we like, and on what we 
don't like.   I like this person, I don't like this person.  Now with this
person, I will do things willingly.  With this other person, I will do things
unwillingly.   But the reality is that everybody is oscillating between 
a good person and a bad person.  It is important to understand this.

If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
wonderfully.  If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
people act nasty.  That's how it is. 

The moment we think we are good, we are entitled to destroy the bad,
isn't it? 

Regards
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 15:38 John Darrington, <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
>
>      I would
>      very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also
> openly
>      exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not*
> associated with
>      the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that
> person
>      exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association,
> even if
>      indirect one (other than historical).
>
>
> I suppose I feel the same.  I would also prefer it if all people involved
> with GCC (and all my other interests) did not do or say things which made
> me
> uncomfortable.  I don't however feel that I have the right to call for
> anyone
> to be excluded simply because I'm uncomfortable with that person's words or
> deeds (ie. "consider them abhorent"). That would be an utterly dystopian,
> world.
>

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:37 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:36, John Darrington wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >      politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >      not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >      make it one.
> >
> > For the record it was David who first brought up the political allegory so
> > this comment should be directed in his direction.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >
> > As for your second point, I find it disappointing but not suprising that
> > you "presumed" this comment to be an insult.   This is precisely the
> > thing which has caused so much poisonous discourse in recent years.  Some
> > people take any opinion they disagree with and look for ways to interpret
> > it as an insult.   This gives them a lever to claim that anyone who holds
> > that opinion is a chauvanist, a bigot or worse.   This must stop.
> >
>
> I did not take the comment as an insult - I merely presumed that when
> Christopher says someone is acting like the Russian or Chinese
> government, he does not mean it in a good way.  (His later posts make
> that entirely clear.)  I simply don't want to see this turn into a
> political discussion.

It was meant to enlighten you.  Although it has not yet done so, the basic
philosophy of removing people from the community, was the same philosophy
used in Russia and China.

> I agree with you entirely that it is not helpful to perceive insults,
> prejudice or bigotry - in general, it is important to keep the
> discussion polite and try to remain focused.  That is what I wanted to
> do by asking Christopher to avoid politics.

Politics is also my business.  Have heard many discuss "Representations of
values of a group (e.g. of Free Software)", "Marginalisation and removal of
people from all positions in society to undermine the likelihood or making
an impact, rather than being merely spectators but not participants in action".

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:

>> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives 
>> on
>> this topic, hoping for exactly that very  thing to occur.

> I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any 
> value
> from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make 
> assumptions
> about things that you do not know. The moment you assume that you know 
> because
> of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep. It is my wish and my 
> blessing
> that every human being has their intelligence awake.

On 2021-04-10 07:49, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:

>> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and 
>> wanting
>> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of 
>> the
>> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has 
>> he
>> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
>> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
>> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think 
>> are
>> important.
> If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was 
> mostly
> crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
> Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they 
> managed
> to do great things.
> 
> So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
> certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
> a program as you wish, for any purpose".
> 
> Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from 
> Aleksandr
> Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest 
> Hemingway,
> Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the 
> latter
> of course!

So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing anything 
of value
to the discussion of GCC governance then?

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> 
> You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they
> have over GCC.
> I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> does.

https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html

They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf of
their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea 
that
the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any 
more
than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously
worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense concerns 
to
derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to a
new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC.

Him too really, it's important to have trust in your toolchain...

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:27 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > 
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> >> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> 
> >>
> >> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >> make it one.
> > 
> > It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> > positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the 
> > least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.    
> > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> > of doing things.
> 
> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting
> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the
> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he
> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are
> important.

If you look at the history of computing you will find that it was mostly
crooks and people of very mixed kind of qualities.  Not al all saints.
Many of them quite unscrupolous and not very clever.  And still they managed
to do great things. 
  
So it tells a kid: They could do that, why can't you?  That was
certainly what turned me on.  Freedom 0 also says "The freedom to run
a program as you wish, for any purpose".

Should we get our ideas from politicians and bureaucrats; or from Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernest Hemingway, 
Aldous Huxley, Marie-Henri Beyle, and Emily Jane Brontë?  From the latter
of course!


> I think that you mix up freedom and free reins.  Freedom is not anarchy.
>  Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as
> important as freedom of speech or politics.
> 
> >>
> >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> >> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> >> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> >  
> > Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements
> > that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
> > 
> 
> I have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and
> the opinions I express are very much my own.  The does not hinder me
> from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users)
> want or need.  I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy
> to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way
> more weighty than those of others.
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
     
     I would
     very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
     exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
     the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that person
     exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association, even if
     indirect one (other than historical).


I suppose I feel the same.  I would also prefer it if all people involved
with GCC (and all my other interests) did not do or say things which made me
uncomfortable.  I don't however feel that I have the right to call for anyone
to be excluded simply because I'm uncomfortable with that person's words or
deeds (ie. "consider them abhorent"). That would be an utterly dystopian, world.

Of course persons should not use a project's name or infrastructure to make
comments unrelated to the project.  But if that person wishes to make a comment
under his/her own name in an unrelated forum, that is his/her right.  Even if
we consider them abhorrent, we must respect the rights of others.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 13:50 David Brown, <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> >> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
>
> >>
> >> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >> make it one.
> >
> > It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> > positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the
> > least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
>
> > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> > of doing things.
>
> There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting
> people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the
> group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he
> will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
> representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
> act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are
> important.
>
> I think that you mix up freedom and free reins.  Freedom is not anarchy.
>  Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as
> important as freedom of speech or politics.
>
> >>
> >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> >> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> >> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> >
> > Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making
> statements
> > that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
> >
>
> I have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and
> the opinions I express are very much my own.  The does not hinder me
> from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users)
> want or need.  I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy
> to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way
> more weighty than those of others.
>

David is a frequent contributor to the mailing lists, helping other users
with their questions about GCC. That's a lot more than can be said for most
of the new posters who have appeared here for the first time recently,
trying to influence how we run the project.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Pankaj Jangid]

Gabriel Ravier via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

>> What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
>> a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
>> there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
>> maintainers are.
>>
>> And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of
>> maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this
>> thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated
>> cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with
>> the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.
>>
> While I am not saying that the amount of maintainers is directly tied
> to the survival of a project, I would certainly say that a project
> with near to no maintainers without which it cannot compete with
> competing projects (for example, Clang) /will/ die off.

I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends
on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people
are using it.

> The only ones that would remain would be those that would use GCC
> despite its enormous shortcomings for the single and only reason that
> it is licensed under the GPL, and those would be rather rare compared
> to the amount of people that use GCC right now. I am not saying that
> they are just a few dozen people or something like that, but GCC would
> become a shadow of its former self without any other support.

People who care for “Copyleft” were already rare. But people joined;
despite the shortcomings people used “Libre” tools. Something must have
triggered them to participate as users, as developers. What could be
that?

> I would say that under those circumstances GCC would become about as
> popular as Turbo C or other antiquated tools like it, and I would
> certainly hope one would consider Turbo C to be a dead compiler,
> despite the fact that it still has at least 1 active user.

> While I don't think this outcome is likely, it would become likely if
> every single corporation and organization involved in the development
> of GCC suddenly retracted support for it. Do you really think GCC
> could remain competitive compared to compilers like Clang or MSVC if
> development on it was 5 times as slow, and if distributions like
> Fedora and Ubuntu started to migrate to LLVM, or even maybe straight
> up removed GCC from their repositories ?

> PS: Of course, this is completely implausible, and it is almost
> certain that this will never happen, but you're implying that GCC can
> perfectly survive without any support from corporations: I am simply
> telling you what would happen if all those corporations actually
> stopped to support it

I never said that corporations are not important. But it is not
charity. It is the benefit that they got out of GCC. After LLVM, this
will also be a big challenge.

Let us watch the funding trends in the coming years. I will emphasize on
getting those people onboard who are associated with the cause. And when
I say this, I talk about both sides of the spectrum - the developers as
well as the users. With the right set of emotionally connected community
of people, you can do wonders.

Anyway, I am not against your view that maintainers are important. They
certainly are.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Bronek Kozicki]

Hello there

As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of control that person
exerts on the project, if any. What matters to me is association, even if
indirect one (other than historical).

This aside, I also happen to be one of very many developers in a corporate
setting, able to exert a small amount of pressure to entirely switch my
employer's toolset from GCC to Clang (which we already use for many
projects), if I consider the direction that GCC takes (technical or
otherwise) not favourable to us. For this to happen it would be enough for
GCC to lose only a few of the key contributors, like for example Jonathan
Wakely, Nathan Sidwell, Marek Polacek. It does not have to lose many
contributors at all. In fact, since my employer runs RedHat, we might just
follow the direction that RedHat takes with their developer tools in the
future - given their stance on the matter and the current GCC association,
as well as possible loss of major contributors in GCC, I wouldn't take it
for granted that they will keep supporting GCC forever.

Also, it is not called "cancel culture". It is called "actions have
consequences".

That's all,


B. Kozicki

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 09/04/2021 20:36, John Darrington wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
>      
>      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
>      politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
>      not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
>      make it one.
> 
> For the record it was David who first brought up the political allegory so
> this comment should be directed in his direction.

Fair enough.

> 
> As for your second point, I find it disappointing but not suprising that
> you "presumed" this comment to be an insult.   This is precisely the
> thing which has caused so much poisonous discourse in recent years.  Some
> people take any opinion they disagree with and look for ways to interpret
> it as an insult.   This gives them a lever to claim that anyone who holds
> that opinion is a chauvanist, a bigot or worse.   This must stop.
> 

I did not take the comment as an insult - I merely presumed that when
Christopher says someone is acting like the Russian or Chinese
government, he does not mean it in a good way.  (His later posts make
that entirely clear.)  I simply don't want to see this turn into a
political discussion.

I agree with you entirely that it is not helpful to perceive insults,
prejudice or bigotry - in general, it is important to keep the
discussion polite and try to remain focused.  That is what I wanted to
do by asking Christopher to avoid politics.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid, <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> wrote:

> Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> > You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they
> > have over GCC.
>
> I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> does.
>


https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html

They make decisions, they don't get to insert NSA backdoors on behalf of
their employers without the rest of the project being aware. The idea that
the SC members have a special ability to sneak such a change in, any more
than any contributor, is just stupid. But I don't think he's seriously
worried about that, he's just a Concern Troll raising nonsense concerns to
derail any useful discussion from happening. The sooner he moves on to a
new compiler he trusts, the better for everybody involved in GCC.

>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
>> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>

>>
>> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
>> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
>> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
>> make it one.
> 
> It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the 
> least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.    
> The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> of doing things.

There is a big difference between suppression or censorship, and wanting
people in leadership positions to be representative of the values of the
group they lead.  RMS can have all the opinions he wants, and act has he
will (until he ends up arrested for it), but if he is to remain a
representative for others (FSF, GNU and/or GCC), then he has a duty to
act appropriately according to the values those organisations think are
important.

I think that you mix up freedom and free reins.  Freedom is not anarchy.
 Being free from sexism, prejudice, bullying, and harassment are as
important as freedom of speech or politics.

>>
>> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
>> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
>> position as "Chief GNUsance".
>  
> Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements
> that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
> 

I have said very clearly that I am a user of gcc - not a developer, and
the opinions I express are very much my own.  The does not hinder me
from saying what I think the free software world (developers and users)
want or need.  I have not made any claims or suggestions that I am privy
to the minds of others, or that my opinions and ideas are in any way
more weighty than those of others.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Pankaj Jangid]

Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

> You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they
> have over GCC.

I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
does.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 2:53 PM
> From: "Liu Hao" <lh_mouse@126.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> 在 2021/4/10 上午2:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc 写道:
> > 
> > It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> > positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> > discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the
> > least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> > officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
> > The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> > of doing things.
> >
> 
> Then what's your point? The suppression of somebody is bad? Then what are you attempting to defend? 
> The freedom of software, or of discrimination, of insulting, of harassment? No, that is not what I 
> would do or expect, and not what you western people would either.

Yes, the suppression of a person like Stallman from everything is bad.  I defend the freedom of thought.
 
> Chairman Mao actually said that 'women prop up half of the sky', which had a great influence on the 
> Chinese society and has almost eradicated sexism. It's something I can hardly understand why you 
> (singular) still have a very vicious opinion on that.

The suppression of a mass murderer by execution, imprisonment or forced famine is
good.  As is good the suppression of the Communist Party of China, for trying to
dominate the people of Hong Kong, Nepal, and Taiwan.

As well as for lying about coronavirus infection rates amongst people in China. 
 
> [I am not meant to participate in the discussion about the history and future of GCC.]
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Liu Hao
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Liu Hao]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]

在 2021/4/10 上午2:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc 写道:
> 
> It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
> positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
> discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the
> least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
> officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.
> The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
> of doing things.
>

Then what's your point? The suppression of somebody is bad? Then what are you attempting to defend? 
The freedom of software, or of discrimination, of insulting, of harassment? No, that is not what I 
would do or expect, and not what you western people would either.

Chairman Mao actually said that 'women prop up half of the sky', which had a great influence on the 
Chinese society and has almost eradicated sexism. It's something I can hardly understand why you 
(singular) still have a very vicious opinion on that.


[I am not meant to participate in the discussion about the history and future of GCC.]



-- 
Best regards,
Liu Hao


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

> Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about
> the leadership of the project, Ian.
> 
> 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations.

I don't think I'd consider the Steering Committee "the leadership of
the project".  In what sense do they "lead" the project?

To me, when you talk about "leading" a software project, you're talking
about deciding what work gets done and when and by whom it gets done.  The
SC has *absolutely zero* influence on any of those things.  All the
"maintainers" they appoint (which is already indirect) do is approve
changes, not make the changes or decide what changes to make.  And their
approval is supposed to be on technical or style grounds.

The people who make the "leadership" decisions (what to work on and when)
are the companies that employ the *developers*, not the SC or the companies
the employ the members of the SC.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 10:12 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio" <giacomo@tesio.it>
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant@google.com>
> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc@gnu.org, "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the leadership of the project, Ian.
>
> 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations.
>
> This is a fact.

Many in tech have worked at some point in their lives with large corporations.
This is not wrong it itself because most knowledge is concentrated in highly industrialized countries.  I owe much of my technological experience during
my days working with british, dutch and french intelligence.

It is also well known that governments employ about 10% of the best mathematicians.
Furthermore I cannot see how you can feel secure if the people involved work from
Non-Us Corporations.  There are many countries that are even worse than the US.


> Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US Government:
> https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg
>
> The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-)
>
>
> Giacomo
>
> On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington <
> > > john@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > >      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or
> > international
> > > >  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an
> > insult) is
> > > >  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop
> > trying to
> > > >      make it one.
> > > >
> > > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political
> > >
> > > I think David was talking about me:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html
> > >
> > > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a
> > serious
> > > problem in GCC.
> > >
> > > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address
> > it,
> > > I'm moving on.
> > >
> > >
> > > GCC is clearly an US-only project.
> > > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
> > >
> > > This is not intended as an insult.
> > > It's just a fact.
> > >
> >
> > Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely
> > true.
> >
> > Ian
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, 23:22 Giacomo Tesio, <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:

> Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the
> leadership of the project, Ian.
>
> 8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations.
>
> This is a fact.
>
>
> Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US
> Government:
>
> https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg
>
> The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-)
>


You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they have
over GCC.

You said you would move on, please do so.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

Just for the record, I was not talking about developers but about the leadership of the project, Ian.

8 out of 13 members of the Steering Committee are from US-corporations.

This is a fact.


Just like the weird relations some of these companies have had with US Government:
https://www.virtualthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nsa-google-cloud-exploitation.jpg

The implications are left as an exercise for the readers. ;-)


Giacomo

On April 9, 2021 9:40:33 PM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:
> 
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington <
> > john@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or
> international
> > >  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an
> insult) is
> > >  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop
> trying to
> > >      make it one.
> > >
> > > For the record it was David who first brought up the political
> >
> > I think David was talking about me:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html
> >
> > It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a
> serious
> > problem in GCC.
> >
> > Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address
> it,
> > I'm moving on.
> >
> >
> > GCC is clearly an US-only project.
> > A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
> >
> > This is not intended as an insult.
> > It's just a fact.
> >
> 
> Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely
> true.
> 
> Ian

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 1:04 PM Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington <
> john@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> >  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> >  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> >      make it one.
> >
> > For the record it was David who first brought up the political
>
> I think David was talking about me:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html
>
> It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a serious
> problem in GCC.
>
> Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address it,
> I'm moving on.
>
>
> GCC is clearly an US-only project.
> A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
>
> This is not intended as an insult.
> It's just a fact.
>

Just for the record, for other readers, this is not even remotely true.

Ian

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:17 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 14:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in
> > effect have
> > many valuable things to say.
>
> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives on
> this topic, hoping for exactly that very
> thing to occur.

I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any value
from it, because being a seeker of truth means refusing to make assumptions
about things that you do not know.  The moment you assume that you know because
of what you believe, your intelligence will sleep.  It is my wish and my blessing
that every human being has their intelligence awake.

Good Night
Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-09 14:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:

> But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in 
> effect have
> many valuable things to say.

On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives on 
this topic, hoping for exactly that very
thing to occur.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 7:37 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 11:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
>
> [... snip ...]
>
> >> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> >> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> >> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> > Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making
> > statements
> > that imply a representation for the free software world!!!
>
> I know, right? He's not even got the cred conferred to a maintainer of
> an empty GNU project on Savannah.

There is no law that says the highest grossing author on a subject knows
the most about it, writes the best about it, or is even more than mediocre
on the subject at hand.

My mathematical work was entirely kept secret until I resigned my commission
in 2014.  Other forms of credibility exist.

https://www.corrieredimalta.com/coronavirus/la-diffusione-del-covid-19-a-malta-evento-b/

But you seem too ignorant to introspect the likelihood that I could in effect have
many valuable things to say.

Christopher

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

Hi John,

On April 9, 2021 6:36:31 PM UTC, John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
>      
>      Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
>  politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
>  not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
>      make it one.
> 
> For the record it was David who first brought up the political

I think David was talking about me: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html

It was not meant to insult anybody, I was just asking to fix a serious problem in GCC.

Since it's clear that the Steering Committee doesn't want to address it, I'm moving on.


GCC is clearly an US-only project.
A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).

This is not intended as an insult.
It's just a fact.


Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-09 11:02, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:

[... snip ...]

>> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
>> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
>> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making 
> statements
> that imply a representation for the free software world!!!

I know, right? He's not even got the cred conferred to a maintainer of 
an empty GNU project on Savannah.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
     
     Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
     politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
     not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
     make it one.

For the record it was David who first brought up the political allegory so
this comment should be directed in his direction.

As for your second point, I find it disappointing but not suprising that
you "presumed" this comment to be an insult.   This is precisely the
thing which has caused so much poisonous discourse in recent years.  Some
people take any opinion they disagree with and look for ways to interpret
it as an insult.   This gives them a lever to claim that anyone who holds
that opinion is a chauvanist, a bigot or worse.   This must stop.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

Things will still remain good for RMS by those willing to help him.  I use
free software every day and will be a long time before Richard exhausts his
entitlement to help from me!!!

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> >> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> >> To: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> >>> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> >>> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> >>> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> >>> to take over the role.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> >> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> >> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> >> harm to the free and open source software worlds.
> > 
> > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
> > his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
> >  
> 
> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> make it one.
> 
> >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> >> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> >> not careful.)
> >  
> >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> >> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> >> someone to fill his shoes.)
> >  
> > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for
> > the job.  I certainly don't! 
> >  
> 
> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> position as "Chief GNUsance".
> 
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>, gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> >> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> >> To: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
> >>
> >> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> >>> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> >>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> >>> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> >>> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> >>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> >>> to take over the role.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> >> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> >> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> >> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> >> harm to the free and open source software worlds.
> > 
> > David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
> > his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
> >  
> 
> Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
> make it one.

It is an assessment of what you propose.  The removal of people from all
positions is a political statements.  I have no problem with political
discussions and certainly don't take instructions from you, to say the 
least!  What you talk about is exactly what drives Chinese and Russian
officials to suppress anybody who does not conform with their demands.    
The consequences will be the same should you and others get your way
of doing things.

> >> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> >> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> >> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> >> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> >> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> >> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> >> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> >> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> >> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> >> not careful.)
> >  
> >> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> >> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> >> someone to fill his shoes.)
> >  
> > I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for
> > the job.  I certainly don't! 
> >  
> 
> We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
> of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
> position as "Chief GNUsance".
 
Secondly,  I cannot clearly see what status you have for making statements
that imply a representation for the free software world!!!

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 09/04/2021 16:40, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
>> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
>> To: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
>> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>>
>> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
>>> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
>>> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
>>> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
>>> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
>>> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
>>> to take over the role.
>>>
>>
>> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
>> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
>> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
>> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
>> harm to the free and open source software worlds.
> 
> David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
> his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
>  

Different opinions are fine.  Bringing national or international
politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
not fine.  This is not a political discussion - please stop trying to
make it one.

>> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
>> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
>> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
>> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
>> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
>> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
>> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
>> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
>> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
>> not careful.)
>  
>> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
>> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
>> someone to fill his shoes.)
>  
> I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for
> the job.  I certainly don't! 
>  

We (the free software world) does not need a person with the qualities
of RMS any more - that is the point.  There should not be such a
position as "Chief GNUsance".

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gabriel Ravier]

On 4/9/21 1:48 PM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> Gabriel Ravier via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
>> RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and
>> doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If
>> you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would
>> be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in
>> commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from
>> corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more
>> commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also
>> remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and
>> the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution,
>> meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not
>> doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented
>> individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer
>> from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much
>> less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die
>> out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't
>> indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC
>> unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less
>> contributions to it.
> What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
> a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
> there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
> maintainers are.
>
> And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of
> maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this
> thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated
> cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with
> the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.
>

If you have an enormous exodus of maintainers that takes away 4 fifths 
of maintainers, then there is a very high probability that the project 
will simply die by essentially all measures except for such asinine ones 
as "there is still at least 1 user of it" (under which, say, Version 6 
UNIX is not dead as there are still computers running it and people 
using it), as a GCC with much less people maintaining it would, over 
time, become very unattractive as a tool for actually making programs, 
as progress on developing it would become very slow. It would, for 
example, lose any C++ users that want to use anything beyond C++17 or 
the partial support for C++20 that GCC has right now.

While I am not saying that the amount of maintainers is directly tied to 
the survival of a project, I would certainly say that a project with 
near to no maintainers without which it cannot compete with competing 
projects (for example, Clang) /will/ die off.

The only ones that would remain would be those that would use GCC 
despite its enormous shortcomings for the single and only reason that it 
is licensed under the GPL, and those would be rather rare compared to 
the amount of people that use GCC right now. I am not saying that they 
are just a few dozen people or something like that, but GCC would become 
a shadow of its former self without any other support.

I would say that under those circumstances GCC would become about as 
popular as Turbo C or other antiquated tools like it, and I would 
certainly hope one would consider Turbo C to be a dead compiler, despite 
the fact that it still has at least 1 active user. While I don't think 
this outcome is likely, it would become likely if every single 
corporation and organization involved in the development of GCC suddenly 
retracted support for it. Do you really think GCC could remain 
competitive compared to compilers like Clang or MSVC if development on 
it was 5 times as slow, and if distributions like Fedora and Ubuntu 
started to migrate to LLVM, or even maybe straight up removed GCC from 
their repositories ?

PS: Of course, this is completely implausible, and it is almost certain 
that this will never happen, but you're implying that GCC can perfectly 
survive without any support from corporations: I am simply telling you 
what would happen if all those corporations actually stopped to support it

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 11:48 PM
> From: "Pankaj Jangid" <pankaj@codeisgreat.org>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Gabriel Ravier via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> > RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and
> > doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If
> > you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would
> > be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in
> > commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from
> > corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more
> > commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also
> > remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and
> > the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution,
> > meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not
> > doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented
> > individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer
> > from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much
> > less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die
> > out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't
> > indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC
> > unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less
> > contributions to it.
>
> What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
> a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
> there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
> maintainers are.
>
> And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of
> maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this
> thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated
> cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with
> the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.

RMS made the GNU System without the cohort of active contributions listed.
This means that great things can be accomplished when people is focused
on what they do.  I am sure help will come from other sources if the tools
are valuable enough.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 10:37 PM
> From: "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
> To: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> > anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> > tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> > 
> > Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> > down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> > would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> > I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> > to take over the role.
> > 
> 
> And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
> head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
> his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
> involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
> harm to the free and open source software worlds.

David, I oppose your thought that he should be made to step down from ALL
his positions.  That's the fundamental philosophy of China and Russia.
 
> It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
> for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
> and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
> not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
> the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
> now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
> - along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
> am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
> I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
> not careful.)
 
> (I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
> to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
> someone to fill his shoes.)
 
I do not see that a person with the qualities of RMS would ask permission for
the job.  I certainly don't! 
 
> David Brown
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 07:30, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
> These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they
> are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list.

That list is precisely the toxic cesspit that makes me want to have
nothing more to do with GNU, ever.

My current expectation is that after the GCC 11 release my
contributions to GCC will be pushed to a Git repo somewhere other than
gcc.gnu.org and I will not be assigning copyright to FSF. I'm done
with this cult and those who think they have any influence on GCC,
just because of a historical association with GNU.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Paul Koning]

> On Apr 9, 2021, at 2:27 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they
> are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list.

More than "slightly", in my view.  I'm close to putting this thread into my "send straight to trash" mail rule.  The alternative would be to unsubscribe gcc, which it would be nice to avoid.

	paul

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

 
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:37 PM
> From: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
> To: "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:35:23PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>      
>      > RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others
>      > became
>      > involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
>      > continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
>      > time they wish to do so.
>      
>      I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in
>      general), but RMS is not my leader.

RMS never sent me an Allegiance Oath.
 
> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> 
> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> to take over the role.
> 
>      
>      > Then why do you write this from your employer's email?
>      
>      My employer gives me permission.
> 
> That's good to know.  My employer on the other hand expressly forbids it.
> And I think that is a reasonable prohibition (we're allowed to use their
> internet connection for personal use) but not allowed to use the company
> name (including email addresses) in personal communication.  Even if they
> didn't prohibit this, I wouldn't dream of using my company's email or
> letterhead for personal communication.
>      
>      Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer
>      to keep that address private.
> 
> So in other words, you are happy to make contraversial statements, but don't
> wish to face the responsibility.  Come on David!  By all means question RMS
> (or anyone else) but have the guts to do this under your own identity rather
> than duck in and out behind a veil of quasi-anonymity!

My address is public.  David, if you did not like my reaction, I would
not say that you hesitated in making disparaging comments.  But am not
against using your freedem of speech to see what is going on.

But tho philosophy that is guiding the utterances against RMS by left wing
totalitarians is the same philosophy of that of Mao Zedong - "Life is shit
and then you die!".
 
> I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC.
> 
> J'
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Pankaj Jangid]

Gabriel Ravier via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

> RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and
> doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If
> you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would
> be removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in
> commits). If you also remove all the major contributors that are from
> corporations (counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more
> commits), you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also
> remove the major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and
> the GDC project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution,
> meaning you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not
> doubt that all of the contributors that would remain are talented
> individuals, GCC would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer
> from the loss of 3 to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much
> less appealing as a compiler, and in the worst case simply die
> out. While each of the individuals forming any of those groups aren't
> indispensable, as a group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC
> unless you think GCC can really survive with 3/5 times less
> contributions to it.

What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
maintainers are. 

And let me also tell you the truth. I have looked at the list of
maintainers and the steering committee for the first time, when this
thread was started. My reason for sticking to GCC is FSF and associated
cause. Not the above list of people. Those who are not connected with
the cause have already started migrating to the competing tools.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 09/04/2021 08:37, John Darrington wrote:

> 
> Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
> anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
> tried to confer a cult hero status on him.
> 
> Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
> down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
> would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
> I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
> to take over the role.
> 

And I don't think people (at least, not many) are "calling for his
head".  My thought is that he should be encouraged to step down from all
his positions within GNU, FSF, gcc, and any other projects he is
involved with.  Retire now, while he can do so with dignity and without
harm to the free and open source software worlds.

It is only if it is left too late that people will be /forced/ to call
for his head.  You can be very sure that complaints about his behaviour
and attitudes will not diminish - they will grow, and the result will
not be good for RMS, GNU, gcc, users, developers, or anyone else except
the sellers of tabloid newspapers.  I would rather see him leave quietly
now with respect, than be hounded out later and his statues pulled down
- along with the careers and reputations of many who work with him.  (I
am not saying that such a destruction would be correct or appropriate -
I am saying it will happen in the end if the free software community is
not careful.)


(I agree that there are few, if any, people who had the qualities of RMS
to do the job he did.  But IMHO that role is over - we don't need
someone to fill his shoes.)


David Brown

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:35:23PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
     
     > RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others
     > became
     > involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
     > continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
     > time they wish to do so.
     
     I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in
     general), but RMS is not my leader.

Nobody is suggesting that RMS should be regarded by everyone or indeed
anyone as "mein Führer".  I think he would be very much concerned if anyone
tried to confer a cult hero status on him.

Sooner or later, if for no reason other than his age, RMS will have to step
down as leader of GNU.   Rather than calling for his head on a block it
would be more constructive to think to the future.  Unfortunately to date,
I have not seen anyone who in my opinion would have the qualities necessary
to take over the role.

     
     > Then why do you write this from your employer's email?
     
     My employer gives me permission.

That's good to know.  My employer on the other hand expressly forbids it.
And I think that is a reasonable prohibition (we're allowed to use their
internet connection for personal use) but not allowed to use the company
name (including email addresses) in personal communication.  Even if they
didn't prohibit this, I wouldn't dream of using my company's email or
letterhead for personal communication.
     
     Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer
     to keep that address private.

So in other words, you are happy to make contraversial statements, but don't
wish to face the responsibility.  Come on David!  By all means question RMS
(or anyone else) but have the guts to do this under your own identity rather
than duck in and out behind a veil of quasi-anonymity!

I'm glad that you're going to continue to contribute to GCC.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they
are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list.

   To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects
   users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract:
   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

This is your own personal web site, and does not describe the GNU
project nor host any documents related to it.  The GNU project doesn't
have a "social contract", nor does it require anyone to sign or agree
to such a document to contribute, or take on the task of being a GNU
maintainer.  If you want to read about what the GNU project is, how it
runs, and other such interesting tid bits: http://www.gnu.org

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 20:21 +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:     

[...]

>      Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project
> we're
>      associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).
> 
> RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others
> became
> involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
> continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
> time they wish to do so.

I intend to continue contributing to GCC (and to Free Software in
general), but RMS is not my leader.

>      
>      My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
> 
> Then why do you write this from your employer's email?

My employer gives me permission.

>   That is like
> writing it on the company letterhead.

I disagree.

>   I suggest that when speaking
> for yourself you use your own email.

Given the reaction that some have faced for questioning RMS, I'd prefer
to keep that address private.

As before, these are my opinions, not my employer's.

Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 7:48 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
> To: "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> > > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> > >
> > > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> > > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> > > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> > >
> > > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > > > has
> > > > made a difference?
> > >
> > > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> > > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> > > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> > > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> > > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> > > the
> > > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> > > anymore.
> >
> > This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
> > the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
> > benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
> > the code.
>
> Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But
> having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits.
>
> > Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> > non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> > work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> > copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> > death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> > the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.
>
> Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
> copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
> it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
> just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
> individual copyright holder on their own.
>
> If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
> Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
> projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
> https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
>
> I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
> in any action taken on behave of the collective:
> https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf
>
> > > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> > > every
> > > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> > > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> > > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.
> >
> > Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
> > to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
> > GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
> > start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
> > holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
> > clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
> > mistake to use it for software documentation.
>
> Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under
> the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering
> Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF?
>
> > > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > > > copyright holders?
> > >
> > > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> > > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> > > with
> > > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> > > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> > > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> > > almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
> >
> > Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.
>
> It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible.  We have to
> see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back.
> They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF
> relationship:
> https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/
> Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation.
>
> > It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists.  I
> > agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post:
> > http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu
> >
> > IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things:
> > - the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc,
> > glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Tools Cauldron
> > - anything hosted under the gnu.org domain (including this mailing
> > list)
> > - things that have been blessed by RMS with the "GNU" title for
> > adhering to his own terms of ideological correctness
> > - an attempt to reimplement what in the 1980s passed for state-of-the-
> > art
> > - an idea, or vision, either political, or technological, or some blend
> > of both
> > - an expansive definition for whenever RMS wants to claim that other
> > people's work is somehow "GNU/Linux"
> > - various other definitions, I'm sure
>
> To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects
> users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract:
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

Gnu is a project started by Richard Stallman with the aim of making
a software system that respects the freedom of its users.  We don't know
what will happen after.  Someone else might start a new project and use
Gnu tools.  You can only have a claim on things one starts, and Gnu
is not something you started.

There could be many boards that get set up through the years, but nobody can
guarantee how things turn out to be.  At Stanford, a study revealed that 87%
believed they were better than their peers.  It is- evident than many in the
community that have ganged up against Richard think they can do better.  But
they won't!

> > > I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
> > > is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
> > > still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a
> > > similar
> > > discussion right now
> > > https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
> >
> > For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> > build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> > permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> > self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> > it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.

Richard is not self-appointed.  But he decided to make the Gnu Project public.
You are entitled to compete with him and see where you get.

Because he is on the board, he set himself up for some pretty uncomfortable
meetings.  Now we are starting to see the trend where his input could
either be ignored or worse.

Mark, go concentrate on something new, in which there are a myriad of things
you actually can control.  Even without Stallman, it does not mean that
you can then run roughshod over others, because there are many of us
who will not sit around for your convenience.

> Agreed,
>
> Mark
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 08/04/2021 19:22, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> No, David, 
> 
> On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown <david@westcontrol.com> wrote:
> 
>>  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
> 
> you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.
> 
> FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.
> 

You have snipped the context.  Let me repeat it:

"""
... no one can
be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
"""

For most people that have enough interest in software to be aware of the
concepts of free and/or open source software, lump them together.  That
applies to users and developers.  To the majority of gcc users, they do
not care whether the project refers to itself as "free software" or
"open source software".  They often care that it is easily available at
zero cost (though some pay for it - I and my company have, at times,
bought gcc packages), and they like the fact that all the source code is
available even if they don't look at the source themselves.

But whoever you blame for spreading confusion, or for artificially
creating distinctions that rarely matter (this viewpoint has its
supporters too), the fact remains that the mix-up is real.  In almost
all circumstances, to almost all people, it is all "FOSS".  And the GNU
project, along with Linux, LibreOffice (or still OpenOffice, in most
people's minds), Firefox, and a few other big projects are viewed
together as a group and the opposite of "big company" software such as
MS Windows and Office, Apple software, and Adobe Photoshop (to take some
well-known examples).  The attitudes of GNU leaders have an influence on
all of this, as do other public leader figures such as Linus Torvalds.
Their influence (for good or bad) extends well outside the direct
hierarchy of their official positions within their projects.

> 
>> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
>> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
>> FOSS community.
> 
> In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) because I cannot trust a 
> GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.
> 

That is your choice, obviously.  I don't agree with your points
expressed in this list so far, but you make your own decisions here.
Call me naïve, but I trust the maintainers of gcc to make good technical
decisions and make changes that improve the compiler suite.

I do think it is entirely possible that - for example - Facebook will
pay an employee to add features to gcc with the specific aim of
improving the efficiency of the code Facebook uses.  I think that would
be entirely reasonable, and I would be quite happy with it - either the
changes will coincidentally improve that is useful to me, or it will do
it no harm.  I think it is /implausible/ that any company would exert an
influence over gcc in order to make it worse for competitors or other
users.  This is an open source project (in addition to being free
software) - it is hard to make hidden changes when all changes are
reviewed and visible to many people.  I don't believe in conspiracy
theories - they require the cooperation of too many people who would
disagree and make a noise.

(Mistakes happen, and attacks from outside occasionally happen in open
source projects, but that's another matter.)

> I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look for alternatives.
> 
> 
> But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care about real developers 
> and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and now control 
> several GNU projects:

No, I have no particular interest in any companies (other than loyalty
to my own company).  I am not an American, nor do I live in America - I
am Scottish and live in Norway.  Not that that matters here.

And yes, I care about the gcc developers and their ability and freedom
to work as they want on the project.  I care about potential new
developers too - and I do not want to see them reject the idea of
working for gcc (or any other project) because they perceive a foul
atmosphere of bullying, sexual harassment or misogyny.  Nor would I want
anyone to avoid contributing to gcc because of perceived bias for or
against any particular country, culture, religion, or any other aspect
of life that has no relevance for code development.

And yes, I care about users - I am one, having used gcc for some 25
years on perhaps a dozen different targets.

I don't think any corporations control any GNU projects (with which I am
familiar) in the sense of deciding what goes into them, who works on
them, what direction they should take, or anything of that sort.  But a
big development project takes resources - it costs a lot of money.  This
usually comes from corporations that have an interest in the project's
success - companies that are big users, or re-sell the software.  This
can take effect in different ways - for gcc, this is done by employing
people and letting them work on gcc.  (As far as I understand it, the
individuals usually make their own choices as to what they will work
on.)  Alternative arrangements include for companies to pay sponsorship
and that money is used to employee developers directly in the project -
that model is certainly used on some projects.  However it is done, if
there is a dramatic situation and a major resource supply stops
suddenly, it is very bad for the project.

> 
>> someone in the public relations
>> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of
>> the project will get the impression ...
> 
> As you explained, GCC itself is completelly  controlled by few US corporations with 
> strong and long term ties with the US DoD.

I did not "explain" that at all.  You are free to belief this if you
want (you have already said as much), but please do not imagine for an
instant that I have agreed with or supported that view.

I also do not see in any sense how you can conclude that these companies
have "strong and long term ties" with the US DoD.  They are not weapons
suppliers or military suppliers.  The US DoD, just as every country's
DoD, buys whatever computers, chips, software and services it feels make
sense for its needs.  And these companies sell to whatever customers
want their goods and services, subject to any national or internation
trade restrictions.

I am at a loss to understand how such conspiracy theories are relevant
in the discussion about whether or not it would be best for the gcc
project to be independent of the FSF and GNU.

> 
> For sure, it's a big software. And a big threat to everybody outside the US.
> 

You do realise that Italy is a member of NATO - one of the founding
members?  Like Norway, you are part of a military alliance with the USA.
 If you view the US DoD as a threat, you must also view your own
country's DoD as a threat.

But again, you are connecting dots to form a picture that does not
exist, and assigning undue relevance to thin and indirect relationships.
 David Malcolm (to pick one gcc developer) works for Red Hat, which is
owned by IBM, which has supplied computers to the US DoD.  By no
realistic stretch of the imagination does that mean David's
contributions to gcc are controlled by the US DoD.

> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 

I am truly sorry that you have got such a twisted impression and
misunderstanding of what I wrote, and apparently also what others here
have written.  I hope you can learn to trust other people more and take
their word at face value, instead of seeing conspiracies and hidden
meanings behind everything.

David


> 
> Giacomo
> 

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi David,

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:04:21AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> > certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> > 
> > But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> > might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> > give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> > 
> > > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > > has
> > > made a difference?
> > 
> > Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> > copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> > companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> > example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> > the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> > the
> > original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> > anymore.
> 
> This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
> the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
> benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
> the code.

Yes, I admit that it doesn't have to be the FSF specifically. But
having a shared copyright pool held by one legal entity has benefits.

> Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
> non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
> work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
> copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
> death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
> the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.

Yes, having all new copyrights pooled together so we have just two
copyright holders would provide most of the same benefits. And makes
it easier to deal with the legacy FSF copyrights since there would be
just one legal entity having to deal with them instead of each
individual copyright holder on their own.

If it has to come to this then we could take a look at what the
Conservancy already does for aggregating copyright for their member
projects, the Linux kernel and Debian project:
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

I like their idea of having a counsel of developers that gets involved
in any action taken on behave of the collective:
https://sfconservancy.org/docs/blank_linux-enforcement-agreement.pdf

> > And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> > every
> > individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> > the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> > the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.
> 
> Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
> to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
> GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
> start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
> holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
> clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
> mistake to use it for software documentation.

Yes, I am not clear on why this (relicensing the documentation under
the GPL) hasn't been done yet. Is this something the Steering
Committee could start a discussion on with the FSF?

> > > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > > copyright holders?
> > 
> > I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> > only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> > with
> > the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> > attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> > project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> > almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
> 
> Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.

It doesn't, but it would be convenient if it was possible.  We have to
see what the board does to win the confidence of use GNU hackers back.
They still have to answer the questions we sent them about the GNU/FSF
relationship:
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/27/proposals-for-the-new-gnu-fsf-relationship/
Maybe if the whole board is replaced we can finally have that conversation.

> It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists.  I
> agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post:
> http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu
> 
> IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things:
> - the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc,
> glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Tools Cauldron
> - anything hosted under the gnu.org domain (including this mailing
> list)
> - things that have been blessed by RMS with the "GNU" title for
> adhering to his own terms of ideological correctness
> - an attempt to reimplement what in the 1980s passed for state-of-the-
> art
> - an idea, or vision, either political, or technological, or some blend
> of both
> - an expansive definition for whenever RMS wants to claim that other
> people's work is somehow "GNU/Linux"
> - various other definitions, I'm sure

To me GNU is people wanting to create a software system that respects
users freedom according to the GNU Social Contract:
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

> > I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
> > is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
> > still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a
> > similar
> > discussion right now
> > https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
> 
> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.

Agreed,

Mark

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Gabriel Ravier]

On 4/8/21 6:43 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
>> From: "David Brown" <david@westcontrol.com>
>> To: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
>> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>>
>> On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
>>>> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
>>>> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
>>>> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
>>>> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
>>> This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
>>> think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
>>>
>>> If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
>>> "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
>>>
>> It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
>> Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
>> name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>>
>> I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
>> important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
>> and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
>> been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
>> anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
>> To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
>> are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
>> fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
>> anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
>> cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
>> RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
>> generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
>> for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
>> remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
>> healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
>> greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
>> running the show.)
>>
>> For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
>>   I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
>> public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
>> publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
>> be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
>> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
>> FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
>>
>>  From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
>> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
>> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
>> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
>> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
>> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
>> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
>> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
>> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
>> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
>> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
>> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
>> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.
> If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
> not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
> lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
> knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
> Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
> allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
> At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.

RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and 
doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If you 
were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would be 
removing ~13% of active contribution to GCC (counting in commits). If 
you also remove all the major contributors that are from corporations 
(counting a major contributor as someone with 10 or more commits), 
you're removing ~63% of active contribution. If you also remove the 
major organizations contributing to GCC, like Adacore and the GDC 
project, you're removing ~18% more of active contribution, meaning 
you're left with 19% of active contribution. While I do not doubt that 
all of the contributors that would remain are talented individuals, GCC 
would undoubtedly, in the best case, heavily suffer from the loss of 3 
to 4 fifths of active contribution and become much less appealing as a 
compiler, and in the worst case simply die out. While each of the 
individuals forming any of those groups aren't indispensable, as a 
group, they certainly are indispensible to GCC unless you think GCC can 
really survive with 3/5 times less contributions to it.


> A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
> If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
> group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
> don't care.
>
> Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
> on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
> depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
> married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
> freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.
>
>> It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
>> rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
>> - that gcc would be a stronger project if it were to separate from the
>> FSF and GNU.  It should have a "board of directors", or steering
>> committee, or something similar - but these should be selected
>> democratically and openly in some manner, perhaps by votes from major
>> contributors and/or subproject maintainers.  This board or committee
>> could have representatives from the gcc developers, from major
>> commercial contributors, from major users (Linux kernel people, Debian
>> folk, etc.), from target manufacturers (Intel, ARM, etc.), from ordinary
>> users - in short, it should represent the people who have most interest
>> in the future success of the project.
>>
>> It might also make sense to gang together with other important toolchain
>> projects, such as the binutils folk.
>>
>>
>> David Brown
>> (A mostly happy embedded gcc user.)
>>
>>
-- 
_________________________
Gabriel RAVIER
First year student at Epitech
+33 6 36 46 16 43
gabriel.ravier@epitech.eu
11 Quai Finkwiller
67000 STRASBOURG

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 6:21 AM
> From: "John Darrington" <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
> To: "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc@gnu.org, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>      I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
>      literal here.
>
>      No one is literally calling for anyone's head.
>
>
> Nobody has explicitly done so.  However in the last 2 or 3 years there
> has been a growing campaign of hatred.  The people feeding that
> campaign are unhappy with things that RMS and others have said.
> However they have taken it further than that.  These people seek
> eliminate *anyone* who holds certain opinions - they don't care how
> they get eliminated - so long as they go.  What's more, they cite
> numerous putative moralistic justifications to give an air of
> legitmacy to that hatred.
>
> Once such hatefulness becomes accepted, people DON'T any longer make that
> literal--figurative distinction.
>
>      Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
>      associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).
>
> RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others became
> involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
> continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
> time they wish to do so.
>
>
>      My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
>
> Then why do you write this from your employer's email?  That is like
> writing it on the company letterhead.  I suggest that when speaking
> for yourself you use your own email.

Fair points John.

> J'
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 08/04/2021 18:43, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
>> From: "David Brown" <david@westcontrol.com>
>> To: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
>> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>>
<snip>
>> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
>> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
>> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
>> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
>> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
>> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
>> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
>> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
>> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
>> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
>> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
>> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
>> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.
> 
> If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
> not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
> lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
> knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
> Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
> allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
> At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.
> 

RMS was key to getting GNU and the whole concept of Free Software off
the ground.  He was key to the initial development of several important
pieces of software.  He is no longer key to the development of any
software in a technical sense, nor is he key to the philosophical or
ideological parts of the process.

I don't think that any of Ian, Jonathan, and the others are
indispensable.  But I think all of them together are.  If any one or two
of the key gcc developers left the project, life would go on.  If my
feared scenario occurred and many or all of the current gcc developers
who are employed by major IT and hardware companies had to leave, the
project would be dead.

> A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
> If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
> group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
> don't care.

As I said, I am a user.  I don't speak for the main developers of gcc,
or the maintainers of subprojects.  I expect that they do care about the
attitudes of the companies that employ them, at the very least.

> 
> Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
> on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
> depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
> married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
> freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.
> 

Stallman can indeed think whatever he likes, in that no one else can
decide his opinions for him.  He cannot /do/ whatever he likes - I
believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.

However, those of us who think differently on such matters - and that
is, I think, the solid majority of people (not just westerns) - will not
want anything to do with a person who holds such opinions and encourages
such attitudes.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Rodgers]

On 2021-04-08 10:22, Giacomo Tesio wrote:

> No, David,
> 
> On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown <david@westcontrol.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
> 
> you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.
> 
> FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.
> 
>> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
>> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
>> FOSS community.
> 
> In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) 
> because I cannot trust a
> GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.
> 
> I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look 
> for alternatives.
> 

I've had some luck with the compiler offerings from Intel and Microsoft 
and I understand IBM has a compiler, and of course there's Nvidia's 
offerings (formerly PGI).

> But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care 
> about real developers
> and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and 
> now control
> several GNU projects:
> 
>> someone in the public relations
>> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of
>> the project will get the impression ...
> 
> As you explained, GCC itself is completelly  controlled by few US 
> corporations with
> strong and long term ties with the US DoD.
> 
> For sure, it's a big software. And a big threat to everybody outside 
> the US.
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:54:25AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
     
     I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
     literal here.
     
     No one is literally calling for anyone's head.


Nobody has explicitly done so.  However in the last 2 or 3 years there
has been a growing campaign of hatred.  The people feeding that
campaign are unhappy with things that RMS and others have said.
However they have taken it further than that.  These people seek
eliminate *anyone* who holds certain opinions - they don't care how
they get eliminated - so long as they go.  What's more, they cite
numerous putative moralistic justifications to give an air of
legitmacy to that hatred.  

Once such hatefulness becomes accepted, people DON'T any longer make that
literal--figurative distinction.
     
     Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
     associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).

RMS was the first person to be involved in GNU and GCC.  Others became
involved later (under his leadership).  Their contribution was and
continues to be welcome.  They are also free to stop contributing any
time they wish to do so.

     
     My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.

Then why do you write this from your employer's email?  That is like
writing it on the company letterhead.  I suggest that when speaking
for yourself you use your own email.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Giacomo Tesio]

No, David, 

On April 8, 2021 3:00:57 PM UTC, David Brown <david@westcontrol.com> wrote:

>  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)

you are not talking about Free Software, but Open Source.

FOSS, as a term, has been very successful to spread confusion.


> his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.

In fact, I'm actively looking for alternatives to GCC (and LLVM) because I cannot trust a 
GCC anymore and I cannot review each and every change.

I won't contribute my port and in general will suggest people to look for alternatives.


But that's not a problem for you, because you do not actually care about real developers 
and users, just about the US corporations you effectively mentioned and now control 
several GNU projects:

> someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of
> the project will get the impression ...

As you explained, GCC itself is completelly  controlled by few US corporations with 
strong and long term ties with the US DoD.

For sure, it's a big software. And a big threat to everybody outside the US.


Thanks for coming out.


Giacomo

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
> From: "David Brown" <david@westcontrol.com>
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, "David Malcolm" <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> >> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> >> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> >> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> >> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> >
> > This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> > think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
> >
> > If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> > "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
> >
>
> It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
> name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>
> I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
> important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
> and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
> been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
> anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
> To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
> are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
> fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
> anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
> cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
> RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
> generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
> for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
> remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
> healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
> greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
> running the show.)
>
> For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
>  I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
> public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
> publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
> be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
> modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
> FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)
>
> From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
> spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
> RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
> unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
> will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
> immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
> and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
> that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
> amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
> commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.

If RMS in not indispensable, Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan are likewise
not indispensable.  Someone could that over and make their own project and
lead it how they wish.  There are many projects where the original author
knows best where to lead.  Classic examples include medical project Gnu
Health and my project.  Although can also mess a project up, mistakes are
allowed.  Einstein did not get his ideas from committees, neither did Stallman.
At work, I have never encountered any committee that done me any good.

A good book to read is Maskell's "The New Idea of a University".
If some think serious maintainers care about some public relations
group at IBM, Google, or Facebook, they are highly mistaken.  I
don't care.

Stallman can think whatever he likes.  There exist many valid opinions
on questions like exactly how young people can be to get married or be
depicted in pornography.  New Hampshire law allows 13 year olds to get
married.  The only problem is that many western people are too far
freaked out in relation to children, sex, and colonial guilt.

> It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
> rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
> - that gcc would be a stronger project if it were to separate from the
> FSF and GNU.  It should have a "board of directors", or steering
> committee, or something similar - but these should be selected
> democratically and openly in some manner, perhaps by votes from major
> contributors and/or subproject maintainers.  This board or committee
> could have representatives from the gcc developers, from major
> commercial contributors, from major users (Linux kernel people, Debian
> folk, etc.), from target manufacturers (Intel, ARM, etc.), from ordinary
> users - in short, it should represent the people who have most interest
> in the future success of the project.
>
> It might also make sense to gang together with other important toolchain
> projects, such as the binutils folk.
>
>
> David Brown
> (A mostly happy embedded gcc user.)
>
>

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Brown]

On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
>> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
>> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
>> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
>> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
>> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> 
> This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
> 
> If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.
> 

It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection".  That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.

I am a gcc user, but not a developer or contributor.  I think it is
important to appreciate the good RMS has done for the software world,
and to accept history as it has happened rather than how we wish it had
been.  But going forward I don't think any project or organisation has
anything to gain by association with RMS, but will have much to lose.
To a large extent, he has done his job - the free and open source worlds
are now far too big and well-established to fail easily.  The time for
fanaticism, ideology and childish (ref. "Chief GNUisance") and
anti-social leadership is over - pragmatism, practicality and
cooperation are the way of the future.  It is time for the FSF to say to
RMS, "Thank you for all you have done.  Now move over for the next
generation, have a happy retirement, and please don't spoil the future
for the rest of us".  (We still need a few ideologists involved, to
remind us of important principles if anyone strays too far.  It's like a
healthy democratic parliament requiring a few representatives from the
greens, communists and other niche parties - you just don't want them
running the show.)

For me as a person, I cannot condone certain aspects of RMS' behaviour.
 I strongly disapprove of "proof by accusation and rumour" or "trial by
public opinion", but there is enough documented evidence in his own
publications and clearly established personal accounts that no one can
be in doubt that his attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by
modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the
FOSS community.  (And yes, I mean FOSS here, not just free software.)

From a practical viewpoint, I am concerned that opinions about him will
spread.  If the gcc project is not disassociated from anything involving
RMS, I fear the project will suffer from that assosiation, no matter how
unfair it may be.  At some point, someone in the public relations
department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and
will cut off all support from the top down.  The other companies will
immediately follow.  The gcc lead developers like Ian, Jonathan, Joseph
and Nathan will be given the choice of leaving gcc or leaving the job
that puts food on their tables.  gcc is not a hobby project run by
amateurs in their free time - it is a serious project that needs
commercial backing as well as the massive personal dedication it receives.


It is my opinion - entirely personal, and as a long and happy user
rather than a developer, and not speaking for my company or anyone else
- that gcc would be a stronger project if it were to separate from the
FSF and GNU.  It should have a "board of directors", or steering
committee, or something similar - but these should be selected
democratically and openly in some manner, perhaps by votes from major
contributors and/or subproject maintainers.  This board or committee
could have representatives from the gcc developers, from major
commercial contributors, from major users (Linux kernel people, Debian
folk, etc.), from target manufacturers (Intel, ARM, etc.), from ordinary
users - in short, it should represent the people who have most interest
in the future success of the project.

It might also make sense to gang together with other important toolchain
projects, such as the binutils folk.


David Brown
(A mostly happy embedded gcc user.)

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 08:45 +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:34:12PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>      >      
>      >      What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.
>      > 
>      > ???? I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.
>      
>      Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
> 
> Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political
> analogy:
> I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.

I grew up in the UK, and am most familiar with the situation there; I
don't have experience of the Australian system.

>      
>      What's the process for replacing the guy at the top, if he's
> become a
>      liability to the project?  What would a healthy structure look
> like?
> 
> Many countries have a single person as head of state with no formally
> defined process for replacing him or her.   Most of those countries
> are not
> usually descibed as "dictatorships".

It depends on whether the head of state is a mere figurehead, or is
actually in charge.  In the UK, the Queen is nominally in charge of
"her government", but that mostly amounts to merely rubberstamping the
election result, albeit with some limited "soft power" in terms of
gravitas.  I think it remains to be seen if the monarchy will survive
her passing (if indeed the UK is still in its current form at that
point, but that's a whole other can of worms).

> Further, history has shown,  in cases where that head of state has
> been
> forcibly removed (eg France, Russia). the regime that replaced them
> turned
> out to be composed of murderous powermongers concerned with nobody's
> interest
> but their own. 

If we're continuing the political analogy, a counterexample might be
the United States.

>   I for one, will not sit back and let that heppen to GNU.

I think it's important to distinguish between the figurative and
literal here.

No one is literally calling for anyone's head.

Some of us don't want RMS in a leadership position in a project we're
associated with (be it the FSF or GNU, and thus, GCC).

My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 07:56:14AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
     >      Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
     > 
     > Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political analogy:
     > I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.
     
     I think it's like the Queen of England.  As a British person I used to
     know said: "The Queen of England has the power to veto anything passed by
     the Parliament in any Commonwealth country until she actually does it; at
     that point she'll lose that power".

In 1975 she dismissed the prime minister of Australia, yet nearly 50 years
later she is still the head of state.
     
     I see it as the same here: if RMS tried to exert an inappropriate
     level of control over some GNU project, it would soon be made clear that
     that something he can't do.

Generally I agree.  Such draconian measures like dismissal of people has to
be done tactfully, only occasionally and only when there is very good cause.
So far as I'm aware, her majesty has done it only once; rms has done it only
twice.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Richard Kenner]

>      Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.
> 
> Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political analogy:
> I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.

I think it's like the Queen of England.  As a British person I used to
know said: "The Queen of England has the power to veto anything passed by
the Parliament in any Commonwealth country until she actually does it; at
that point she'll lose that power".

I see it as the same here: if RMS tried to exert an inappropriate
level of control over some GNU project, it would soon be made clear that
that something he can't do.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:34:12PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
     >      
     >      What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.
     > 
     > ???? I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.
     
     Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.

Power does not "flow" from RMS.  Since you have used a political analogy:
I think it is more akin to a constitutional monarchy.
     
     What's the process for replacing the guy at the top, if he's become a
     liability to the project?  What would a healthy structure look like?

Many countries have a single person as head of state with no formally
defined process for replacing him or her.   Most of those countries are not
usually descibed as "dictatorships".

Further, history has shown,  in cases where that head of state has been
forcibly removed (eg France, Russia). the regime that replaced them turned
out to be composed of murderous powermongers concerned with nobody's interest
but their own.   I for one, will not sit back and let that heppen to GNU.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 18:24 +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:15:14AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc
> wrote:
> 
>      > It reflects the same message that has been sent to new GNU
>      > maintainers
>      > for the decades. The GNU structure and organization document
>      > (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.en.html) is basically a
>      > reflection of that, and how we have been doing things for
> decades.
>      
>      "We've always done it this way" is not necessarily a good
> defence of an
>      existing practice.
> 
> You are right.  The GNU Structure document doesn't claim to be. It
> just
> documents the way things are.
>      
>      > That is true, RMS appoints which projects become GNU projects
> or not,
>      > and who maintains them.  And as maintainers we have a lot of
> freedom,
>      > as
>      > can be seen here, and elsewhere.  
>      
>      What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.
> 
> ???? I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.

Having one guy at the top from whom all power flows.

What's the process for replacing the guy at the top, if he's become a
liability to the project?  What would a healthy structure look like?

My opinions, not my employer's, as usual
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

   "We've always done it this way" is not necessarily a good defence of an
   existing practice.

That wasn't the claim, it is how we do it currently, and have been
doing for decades though.  If you have concrete suggestions, please
send them to the GNU Advisory Committee.

   >    The GNU Assembly is having a similar
   >    discussion right now
   > 
   > It should be noted that this group is not associated with the GNU
   > project, or represents it in anyway, despite pretending to.

   I don't think you get to speak for who is or is not a member of the GNU
   project.  As far as I know, "GNU" isn't trademarked.

I said that the group isn't speaking for the GNU project, nor does it
represent it.  If you want to know more, feel free reach out to the
GAC or RMS.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jeff Law]

On 4/7/2021 11:17 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
>> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
>> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
>> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
>> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
>> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.
> This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
> think GCC needs to remain associated with it.
>
> If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
> "Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.

Speaking strictly for myself, that works for me as well and I'd support 
such a proposal.


jeff

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 15:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
> build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
> permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
> self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
> it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.

This matches my feelings. If the FSF can be saved, fine, but I don't
think GCC needs to remain associated with it.

If the GNU name is a problem, rename the projects to be simply "GCC",
"Glibc", "GDB" etc without being an initialism.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 17:28, John Darrington wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:15:14AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>      I don't think you get to speak for who is or is not a member of the GNU
>      project.  As far as I know, "GNU" isn't trademarked.
>
>
> It certainly used to be, unless those guys at the FSF have let it lapse again.

The footnote at
https://mikegerwitz.com/2012/10/trademarks-in-free-software#fn1 gives
details.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[John Darrington]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:15:14AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:

     > It reflects the same message that has been sent to new GNU
     > maintainers
     > for the decades. The GNU structure and organization document
     > (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.en.html) is basically a
     > reflection of that, and how we have been doing things for decades.
     
     "We've always done it this way" is not necessarily a good defence of an
     existing practice.

You are right.  The GNU Structure document doesn't claim to be. It just
documents the way things are.
     
     > That is true, RMS appoints which projects become GNU projects or not,
     > and who maintains them.  And as maintainers we have a lot of freedom,
     > as
     > can be seen here, and elsewhere.  
     
     What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.

???? I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.

     
     
     I don't think you get to speak for who is or is not a member of the GNU
     project.  As far as I know, "GNU" isn't trademarked.
     

It certainly used to be, unless those guys at the FSF have let it lapse again.

J'

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 10:51 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt via Gcc wrote:
>    [...]  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 reflects the same message that has been sent to new GNU
> maintainers
> for the decades. The GNU structure and organization document
> (https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.en.html) is basically a
> reflection of that, and how we have been doing things for decades.

"We've always done it this way" is not necessarily a good defence of an
existing practice.

> You can raise any issues you think do not reflect on the lists, or
> with the GNU Advisory Committee.
> 
>    RMS indeed claims to be the "Chief GNUisance" of the GNU project
> and
>    that that title somehow makes him the leader of the project and
> that
>    he appoints GNU maintainers.
> 
> That is true, RMS appoints which projects become GNU projects or not,
> and who maintains them.  And as maintainers we have a lot of freedom,
> as
> can be seen here, and elsewhere.  

What you're describing sounds like a dictatorship to me.

> 
>    The GNU Assembly is having a similar
>    discussion right now
> 
> It should be noted that this group is not associated with the GNU
> project, or represents it in anyway, despite pretending to.

I don't think you get to speak for who is or is not a member of the GNU
project.  As far as I know, "GNU" isn't trademarked.

My opinions, not my employer's, as usual
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   [...]  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 reflects the same message that has been sent to new GNU maintainers
for the decades. The GNU structure and organization document
(https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.en.html) is basically a
reflection of that, and how we have been doing things for decades.

You can raise any issues you think do not reflect on the lists, or
with the GNU Advisory Committee.

   RMS indeed claims to be the "Chief GNUisance" of the GNU project and
   that that title somehow makes him the leader of the project and that
   he appoints GNU maintainers.

That is true, RMS appoints which projects become GNU projects or not,
and who maintains them.  And as maintainers we have a lot of freedom, as
can be seen here, and elsewhere.  

   The GNU Assembly is having a similar
   discussion right now

It should be noted that this group is not associated with the GNU
project, or represents it in anyway, despite pretending to.

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[David Malcolm]

On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 00:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets change the subject now that this is about GCC and the FSF.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> wrote:
> > Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to
> > become
> > a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with
> > mass
> > resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from
> > being
> > associated with either of them.
> 
> I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
> 
> But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
> 
> > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC
> > has
> > made a difference?
> 
> Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when
> the
> original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> anymore.

This benefit arises from having a single entity own the copyright in
the code.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the FSF to gain this
benefit; it just happens that the FSF currently owns the copyright on
the code.

Another, transitional approach might be to find another Free Software
non-profit and for contributors to start assigning copyright on ongoing
work to that other non-profit.  That way there would be only two
copyright holders on the code; if the FSF somehow survives its current
death-spiral then the other nonprofit could assign copyright back to
the FSF;  if it doesn't, well, we've already got bigger problems.

> And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of
> every
> individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.

Alternatively, the copyright holder could relicense the documentation
to a license that is explicitly compatible with the GPL, such as the
GPL itself, and not require us to jump through hoops.  (Or we could
start a non-GFDL body of documentation under a different copyright
holder, but I'm not volunteering for that effort).  In case it's not
clear, I think the GFDL is a terrible license, and that it's always a
mistake to use it for software documentation.

> > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > copyright holders?
> 
> I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation
> with
> the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> almost no individual has the means to take up a case.

Again, the "single entity" doesn't need to be the FSF.

> > Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork
> > of
> > GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would
> > prefer
> > to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code.
> > And
> > if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret
> > optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to
> > violate
> > the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was
> > a
> > success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an
> > easier option.
> 
> I admit that the only way proprietary compiler writers can compete
> with GCC is by producing a lax-permissive licensed compiler is an odd
> way to win for Free Software. 
> But we should still make sure that GCC
> itself makes it so that users can actually get the sources of the
> compiler they are using and not just some sources that might or might
> not correspond to the binary they are using. Making sure that the
> code
> reaches actual users and not just some corporate hackers to create a
> proprietary compiler is what counts IMHO. And using strong copyleft
> and having a shared copyright pool of code held by an entity that can
> enforce that is still necessary IMHO.
> 
> > Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU?

It's not clear to me to what extent "GNU" is a thing that exists.  I
agree with much of Andy Wingo's October 2019 blog post:
http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu


IMHO, "GNU" can mean various things:
- the small family of "g"-prefixed toolchain/low-level projects (gcc,
glibc, gdb) that work together and attend the GNU Tools Cauldron
- anything hosted under the gnu.org domain (including this mailing
list)
- things that have been blessed by RMS with the "GNU" title for
adhering to his own terms of ideological correctness
- an attempt to reimplement what in the 1980s passed for state-of-the-
art
- an idea, or vision, either political, or technological, or some blend
of both
- an expansive definition for whenever RMS wants to claim that other
people's work is somehow "GNU/Linux"
- various other definitions, I'm sure


> I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
> is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
> still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a
> similar
> discussion right now
> https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/

For myself, I'm interested in copyleft low-level tools being used to
build a Free Software operating system, but the "GNU" name may be
permanently tarnished for me; I have no wish to be associated with a
self-appointed "chief GNUisance".  I hope the FSF can be saved, since
it would be extremely inconvenient to have to move.

My opinions, not my employer's, as usual.
Dave

Re: GCC association with the FSF

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 at 10:22 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard" <mark@klomp.org>
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: GCC association with the FSF
>
> Hi,
>
> Lets change the subject now that this is about GCC and the FSF.
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to become
> > a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass
> > resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being
> > associated with either of them.
>
> I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
> certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062
>
> But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
> might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
> give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.
>
> > Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC has
> > made a difference?
>
> Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
> copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
> companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
> example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
> the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when the
> original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
> anymore.
>
> And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of every
> individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
> the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
> the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.

I have been discussing with Richard Stallman how we could get compatibility
between the GFDL and the other licences.

> > Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> > that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> > entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> > copyright holders?
>
> I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
> only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation with
> the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
> attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
> project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
> almost no individual has the means to take up a case.
>
> > Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork of
> > GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would prefer
> > to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code. And
> > if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret
> > optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to violate
> > the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was a
> > success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an
> > easier option.
>
> I admit that the only way proprietary compiler writers can compete
> with GCC is by producing a lax-permissive licensed compiler is an odd
> way to win for Free Software. But we should still make sure that GCC
> itself makes it so that users can actually get the sources of the
> compiler they are using and not just some sources that might or might
> not correspond to the binary they are using. Making sure that the code
> reaches actual users and not just some corporate hackers to create a
> proprietary compiler is what counts IMHO. And using strong copyleft
> and having a shared copyright pool of code held by an entity that can
> enforce that is still necessary IMHO.
>
> > Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU?
>
> I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
> is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
> still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a similar
> discussion right now
> https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>

GCC association with the FSF

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

Lets change the subject now that this is about GCC and the FSF.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:46:29PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Probably unintentionally, but he has allowed the GNU Project to become
> a nasty cult of personality. The FSF seems to be imploding (with mass
> resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being
> associated with either of them.

I admit it isn't looking very good and their last announcement is
certainly odd: https://status.fsf.org/notice/3833062

But apparently the board is still meeting this week to discuss and
might provide a better statement about the way out of this. So lets
give them a couple more days before writing them off completely.

> Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC has
> made a difference?

Yes, at least in my experience it has been helpful that the FSF held
copyright of code that had been assigned by various individuals and
companies. It allowed the merger of GNU Classpath and libgcj for
example. There have been various intances where it was helpful that
the FSF could unilatrally adjust the license terms especially when the
original contributor couldn't be found or didn't exist (as company)
anymore.

And it is really helpful that we don't have to ask permission of every
individual contributor to be able to create the GCC manual (because
the GPL code and GFDL text could otherwise not be combined) but that
the FSF can grant an exception to one of the developers to create it.

> Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
> that were resolved only because all copyright resides with a single
> entity, that couldn't have been resolved on behalf of individual
> copyright holders?

I think it has been very helpful preventing those violations. If you
only have individual copyright holders instead of an organisation with
the means to actually resolve such violations people pay much more
attention to play by the rules. See for example the linux kernel
project. I believe there are so many GPL violations precisely because
almost no individual has the means to take up a case.

> Are we still worried about BigCorp trying to do a proprietary fork of
> GCC? Because BigCorp, OtherCorp etc. have shown that they would prefer
> to create a new toolchain from scratch rather than use GNU code. And
> if EvilCorp want to make their own proprietary compiler with secret
> optimizations, they'll just use LLVM instead of bothering to violate
> the GPL. The work done to make it impossible to steal GCC code was a
> success: nobody is even interested in stealing it now. There is an
> easier option.

I admit that the only way proprietary compiler writers can compete
with GCC is by producing a lax-permissive licensed compiler is an odd
way to win for Free Software. But we should still make sure that GCC
itself makes it so that users can actually get the sources of the
compiler they are using and not just some sources that might or might
not correspond to the binary they are using. Making sure that the code
reaches actual users and not just some corporate hackers to create a
proprietary compiler is what counts IMHO. And using strong copyleft
and having a shared copyright pool of code held by an entity that can
enforce that is still necessary IMHO.

> Can we break our (already weak) ties to GNU?

I hope GCC stays part of GNU, but that we might reconsider whether it
is in the best interest of GNU and GCC as Free Software project to
still be associated with the FSF. The GNU Assembly is having a similar
discussion right now
https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/

Cheers,

Mark