A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

[Christopher Dimech]

But that was around 2017.  Perhaps people want to cut costs again - that's
not a new thing.  After all, they changed their mind in 2011 only because
they got in excess of 5000 attacks that year.  At any time in the past, I
would have decided that science was good for the Sapiens.  But now, with
hindsight...

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM
> From: "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
> To: "Richard Kenner" <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>, "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, siddhesh@gotplt.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the use cases.  Not in military surveillance.  And certainly not
> > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  At Boeing could be the same, but
> > > I'm not sure.  Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch,
> > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology.  But
> > > things had really been going berserk around 2008.  From 2017 onwards,
> > > I'm somewhat in the dark.  They could have started allowing some ownership
> > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different
> > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts.
> >
> > I can't understand your point with this version either.   Sorry.
>
> I don't understand these ramblings either. LLNL sure seems to have
> flirted with LLVM:
> https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open-source-fortran-compiler-technology
> https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608523
> https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/wiki/Install-ROSE-with-Clang-as-frontend
>