Runtime library license, was Re: Apple-employed maintainers (was Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles)

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> writes:
> > It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this.
>
> I personally don't think there is any need to remove them as
> maintainers until the FSF finally produces the GPLv3 version of the
> runtime library license.  At that point Apple will be out of excuses,
> and will have to finally decide in or out on future gcc development.


I am probably not alone to be extremely interested in understanding more 
clearly what is happening on the runtime library license side, 
especially with relation to plugins.

The recent thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00292.html
"Defining a common plugin machinery" is particularly concerned with this 
issue (of runtime library license). I'm guessing that since Diego 
Novillo asked something, he was expecting/dreaming/knowing? about some 
evolution on this.

Is it top secret information only available to some few members of the 
Steering Committee, or is some information sharable on this list? Just 
knowing that indeed a runtime library license will be finalized before 
Christmas (ie in 2008) and that GPL-ed plugins will be somehow "blessed" 
by the SC (or is it the FSF) will be a big relief.

Is something happening on runtime library license, or is there some 
unexpected issue which affects existing branches experimenting plugins 
(e.g. MELT)?

The only thing I know about runtime library license is the stuff I heard 
and read at the june 2008 GCC summit, and I am guessing that a lot of 
things happened since. IIRC, I remember having heard in june 2008 that 
we have only months, not years, to wait (I did not understood exactly 
for what, but it was runtime licence related).

In particular, if dlopen-ing GPL-ed (and even FSF copyright-ed) code is 
still a taboo in GCC, I would be glad to be informed...

[I'm writing in some proposals, to get money to work on GCC, that 
plugins are indeed appearing in GCC; I hope that I am not entirely wrong]

Regards.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***