|| ||Ian Lance Taylor <iant-AT-google.com> |
|| ||Daniel Berlin <dberlin-AT-dberlin.org> |
|| ||Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13) |
|| ||Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:33:02 -0700|
|| ||Joe Buck <Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.com>, Richard Guenther <rguenther-AT-suse.de>, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com>, "gcc\@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
Daniel Berlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Why hasn't the SC sent something to the FSF like:
> "We are grateful for your concern about the issues this licensing
> change and subsequent discussion has brought up. However, sadly, the
> amount of time it is taking to reach consensus on how/what to change
> has begun to seriously impede GCC development and it's future.
> Therefore, we request you resolve this licensing issue by March 28th,
> or we will have to branch and prepare the current GCC mainline for
> release, and wait until the next version to make any licensing
> We regret this, but it is necessary in order to not further impede
> development of GCC and it's community"
> It's fairly clear what the view of the developer community is on this
> issue. At some point, if the FSF can't be a organization that
> responds to problems in a sane length of time, we shouldn't let them
> get in the way.
I'm a strong supporter of the FSF, but I agree with Danny. This has
gone on far too long. Releasing gcc 4.4.0 with the same licensing as
gcc 4.3.0 will do no significant harm. The FSF is acting
inappropriately in restricting us in this way.
to post comments)