From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10660 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2010 20:31:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10646 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2010 20:31:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from moene.org (HELO moene.org) (82.95.66.103) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:31:21 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ident=toon) by moene.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O29Eu-0002Uq-BN; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:31:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4BC62610.7090208@moene.org> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:43:00 -0000 From: Toon Moene User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basile Starynkevitch CC: Nathan Froyd , Diego Novillo , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= , Steven Bosscher , Grigori Fursin , Dorit Nuzman , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities workshop) References: <003b01cadbde$21913eb0$64b3bc10$@com> <20100414154431.GR540@codesourcery.com> <4BC609AA.7080503@moene.org> <4BC61C34.7070106@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <4BC61C34.7070106@starynkevitch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Toon Moene wrote: >> >> Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for GCC: There might be too many >> hurdles to use GCC in academia. > > This is probably true, however, the plugin ability of the just released > GCC 4.5 (or is it released tomorrow) helps probably significantly. > My point is that academics can quite easily contribute to GPL software, > but much harder obtain the necessary legal authorizations to transfer > copyright to FSF. My answer was not as clear as necessary. My (earlier) argument was from the perspective of the providers of the code (GCC) - it did not take into account those who *want* to contribute to GCC, but have a hard time to convince their respective legal departments (whether in academia or the commercial world). In that case, a clear plugin interface (and accompanying documentation) can be instrumental in proving that an improvement "actually does the desired thing" and hence can be considered "the outcome of the academic research" (which then subsequently can be written up in a paper). Thanks for pointing that out. -- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html