| |||||||||||||
Any actual statements from the FSF?Any actual statements from the FSF?Posted Oct 3, 2008 4:55 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: Plugging into GCC Just wondering — does anyone have pointers to direct statements from the FSF on this issue? It seems a bit odd to have LWN write two articles on gcc plugins centering around the supposed FSF opposition to them, but every description of the FSF position in both articles is hearsay. Google doesn't turn up anything obvious. To quote LWN's previous article, Some participants stated that Richard Stallman has blocked any sort of GCC plugin mechanism for just this reason - though it should be noted that Mr. Stallman has not contributed directly to this discussion (emphasis added). Can we get it straight from the horse's mouth, please?
(Log in to post comments)
It's not so simple Posted Oct 3, 2008 5:49 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] RMS exist in somewhat different world - where time between program releases is STILL measured in years and mail can be safely answered month after it's sent. I'm pretty sure eventually we'll see something "straight from the horse's mouth" - but probably not so soon.
Time scales Posted Oct 4, 2008 3:18 UTC (Sat) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]
Your feeling about the response time scales might be true for political statements.
As a developer of Emacs RMS is incredibly responsive, following up on bug reports
Any actual statements from the FSF? Posted Oct 3, 2008 11:30 UTC (Fri) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] >>> Can we get it straight from the horse's mouth, please?Sure. Try this mail from RMS : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-01/msg00572.html
Any actual statements from the FSF? Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:22 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Did you check the date on that mail?
Any actual statements from the FSF? Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:24 UTC (Fri) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link]
The ability to change his mind has never been RMS's defining personality trait.
Any actual statements from the FSF? Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:41 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
That's a content-free statement.
What is true is that RMS's agenda and ideology have not changed significantly since the 1980s. However, everything he does is to promote his cause of free software. If he believes that in certain circumstances a "weaker" licence is more suitable for that cause -- eg, LGPL for glibc, BSD for ogg vorbis -- he says so openly (google for statements in both cases). The circumstances with GCC in the 1980s were not the same as in 2000, and are not the same today. If a convincing argument were made that (a) GCC would compete better with proprietary compilers if a plugin mechanism were available, and (b) the plugin mechanism would be unlikely to suffer misuse, either because it is not in the interest of plugin writers or because the licence was carefully worded -- I believe he would not object.
Yes, but it does not mean they NEVER change Posted Oct 3, 2008 17:41 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] For example GCC 4.3 uses ECJ for Java compiler (instead of GCC's own frontend). It was not an easy sell, but in the end RMS agreed.
|
|||||||||||||