This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck <> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> > ? Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently is
>> > charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
>> Apple does not have an internal process to assign code to the FSF anymore. ?I would focus on the code that is already assigned to the FSF.
> To clarify, anything not checked in on somewhere must be
> assumed to be copyright Apple, not copyright FSF, and has not been
> contributed, and Apple has no plans to contribute more code. ?However,
> anything on has been contributed.
> I understand that the main issue is that Apple objects to GPLv3, but
> the exact reason doesn't necessarily matter that much.

Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.  For GCC as a project it
should matter that the code is distributable under GPLv3 which I think
Apples changes are.  Copyright assignment to the FSF might be
convenient, but isn't legally necessary (only necessary by policy and
even that seems to have existing exceptions).

Thus, if getting the copyright assigned to the FSF for the ObjC changes
proves to be impossible I'd suggest to ask the SC for a policy


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]