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: Why not contribute? (to GCC)

On 26 April 2010 02:29, Jack Howarth <> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 08:12:03PM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> ...
>> In some ways, I wish a group did fork GCC under GPL and drop the
>> copyright assignment requirement. In other ways, this entire issue is
>> just so minor to me that it isn't worth going beyond this thread. GCC
>> works, but so do other compilers (Intel CC, LLVM, ...). GCC is
>> distributed under the GPL, so if the FSF ever becomes a real problem (as
>> opposed to merely having a political agenda), it can be forked@this
>> later time.
> ? Is it even possible to fork? Wouldn't that require the new compiler

You can still fork GCC as long as the fork is GPLv3. It is less clear
if you can fork LLVM. Will Apple come after you with a portfolio of
patents? If you can make uninformed wild claims, so can I.

> to start over again from the last non-GPLv3 version of the source code
> (read 4.2.1...which is why Apple's gcc is stuck there). Weren't things

No, Apple is stuck there because they don't like the GPL v3. One may
speculate what is that they don't like: the new patents protections?
the new anti-drm-subversion? For sure their lawyers know what the GPL
protects against, they even participated in the process. So only Apple
knows. They seem to prefer a project with less clear terms, and less
protections against potential legal threats. I wonder why.



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