6 ms·

Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

36 points by spcmnspff 16y ago

Amanjeev 16y ago
Wow. Seems like it is time to give up on shiny Macs.
pohl 16y ago
The headline is misleading. Chris Lattner's post actually just points out that FSF's own copyright-assignment policy may be a blocker: "...In practice, since the FSF cares about copyright assignment, this probably means that..." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
- protomyth 16y ago
  direct links to thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00109.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00109.html "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." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00132.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00132.html
  - avar 16y ago
    Thread in context: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00109 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00109
  - pohl 16y ago
    So let's say a man asks for some food, and Apple says "well, we've got some beef jerky here, but I know you're a strict vegan so you'd probably be more interested in the tofu we set aside for you yesterday", and the headline is "Apple blocks starving man from food".
    - jwhitlark 16y ago
      Er, no. Apple built off the existing code base. This isn't charity, they chose to use free software in the first place. And actually, when they made that choice, it was Apple that was starving. But I'll let someone else draw up the parable. ;-)
      - pohl 16y ago
        Actually actually, it was NeXT who made that choice. And the license itself does not require copyright assignment. Rather, the FSF does.
      - wooster 16y ago
        ... and then FSF changed the license. GCC is under GPLv3 now, no?
avar 16y ago
Apple isn't blocking contributions, they just don't care about them anymore since they're going with LLVM/Clang. And since they don't care they don't have the legal framework in place anymore to do copyright assignments. The FSF could have these changes if they wanted if they didn't require copyright assignment. Personally I don't contribute to FSF projects because copyright assignments are a PITA. I can see how a company that doesn't need to contribute to GCC anymore just doesn't care enough to initiate the requisite legal work.
- tjr 16y ago
  What part of the copyright assignment process do you find bothersome?
  - avar 16y ago
    I've contributed many thousands of lines of code to free software projects, but I've never had to sign some waiver, walk down to the post office and send an inter-continental letter in the mail to go along with a patch I wrote. I'd had have to do that if I submitted a non-trivial change to the FSF, just finding an alternative program that I can use and fix is easier, so I've done that instead of sending patches to them.
  - pieter 16y ago
    Compare a normal workflow, like submitting a bug to Git: * Commit your bugfix * 'git send-email --to=git@vger.kernel.org -1' With the GNU model: * Commit your bugfix / make a patch * Send your patch to the maintainer of the project * The maintainer has to look in a central file if you already assigned copyright to the FSF * If not, they send you an email 'would you be willing to do this' * You reply, "sure, send me the form" * They send you this: https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/misc/www/request-disclaim.changes?view=markup&root=mpfr https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/misc/www/request-disc... * You fill in the form, and thus hand over your snail mail address to the maintainer and the FSF * They send you another form (snail mail!) * You fill it in and send it back (snail mail!) * They receive your form and add it to the list * Your bugfix is now allowed to go into the GNU repository
hackermom 16y ago
Seems to me that the original article writer is flamebaiting and being deliberately inflammatory with his assumptions. I'd say the main issue here is that Apple does not agree with the GPL license family (which we all know since long; they've voiced this before), and that they don't really care for GCC anymore now that they have set aim for Clang-LLVM.
- zppx 16y ago
  I think your opinion is too strong, OS X still ships with many GPL licensed software, bash, smbclient, nmblookup and I'm pretty sure that OS X server includes the GPL3 licensed Samba, OS X still comes with gcc, and I believe it will for the next two releases at least. CUPS, the printer daemon that Apple bought some years ago is still a GPLed software and it appears that Apple has done nothing to change that. Things can change and Apple is a great contributor to LLVM, but Apple appear to have no trouble with the GPL, only trouble with gcc, but that is easy to understand.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    The current issue with Apple and GPL stems from the App Store. FSF says you can't limit distribution of the code, which is reasonable since they own the license to the code. Apple says we want to limit the distribution of the app, which is reasonable since they own the channel. Just like I tell my kids, if you can't get along with the neighbor, don't go play in their back yard. Sounds like Apple is taking that advice and people in the free community are offended.
richardhenry 16y ago
Although the underlying story is interesting, I'm not going to vote up this particular article due to the horribly misleading title.
- riffraff 16y ago
  I am under the impression that phoronix usually does poor "journalism". I still need to understand why file systems get tested using compression and compilation benchmarks.
wazoox 16y ago
Phoronix. The tabloid of free software geek news website. Their best known speciality: sensationalist articles based on ridiculous benchmarks.

36 points by spcmnspff 16y ago

Wow. Seems like it is time to give up on shiny Macs.

pohl 16y ago

The headline is misleading. Chris Lattner's post actually just points out that FSF's own copyright-assignment policy may be a blocker: "...In practice, since the FSF cares about copyright assignment, this probably means that..." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

protomyth 16y ago
direct links to thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00109.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00109.html "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." http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00132.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/msg00132.html
- avar 16y ago
  Thread in context: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00109 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-09/threads.html#00109
- pohl 16y ago
  So let's say a man asks for some food, and Apple says "well, we've got some beef jerky here, but I know you're a strict vegan so you'd probably be more interested in the tofu we set aside for you yesterday", and the headline is "Apple blocks starving man from food".
  - jwhitlark 16y ago
    Er, no. Apple built off the existing code base. This isn't charity, they chose to use free software in the first place. And actually, when they made that choice, it was Apple that was starving. But I'll let someone else draw up the parable. ;-)
    - pohl 16y ago
      Actually actually, it was NeXT who made that choice. And the license itself does not require copyright assignment. Rather, the FSF does.
    - wooster 16y ago
      ... and then FSF changed the license. GCC is under GPLv3 now, no?

avar 16y ago

Apple isn't blocking contributions, they just don't care about them anymore since they're going with LLVM/Clang. And since they don't care they don't have the legal framework in place anymore to do copyright assignments. The FSF could have these changes if they wanted if they didn't require copyright assignment. Personally I don't contribute to FSF projects because copyright assignments are a PITA. I can see how a company that doesn't need to contribute to GCC anymore just doesn't care enough to initiate the requisite legal work.

tjr 16y ago
What part of the copyright assignment process do you find bothersome?
- avar 16y ago
  I've contributed many thousands of lines of code to free software projects, but I've never had to sign some waiver, walk down to the post office and send an inter-continental letter in the mail to go along with a patch I wrote. I'd had have to do that if I submitted a non-trivial change to the FSF, just finding an alternative program that I can use and fix is easier, so I've done that instead of sending patches to them.
- pieter 16y ago
  Compare a normal workflow, like submitting a bug to Git: * Commit your bugfix * 'git send-email --to=git@vger.kernel.org -1' With the GNU model: * Commit your bugfix / make a patch * Send your patch to the maintainer of the project * The maintainer has to look in a central file if you already assigned copyright to the FSF * If not, they send you an email 'would you be willing to do this' * You reply, "sure, send me the form" * They send you this: https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/misc/www/request-disclaim.changes?view=markup&root=mpfr https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/misc/www/request-disc... * You fill in the form, and thus hand over your snail mail address to the maintainer and the FSF * They send you another form (snail mail!) * You fill it in and send it back (snail mail!) * They receive your form and add it to the list * Your bugfix is now allowed to go into the GNU repository

hackermom 16y ago

Seems to me that the original article writer is flamebaiting and being deliberately inflammatory with his assumptions. I'd say the main issue here is that Apple does not agree with the GPL license family (which we all know since long; they've voiced this before), and that they don't really care for GCC anymore now that they have set aim for Clang-LLVM.

zppx 16y ago
I think your opinion is too strong, OS X still ships with many GPL licensed software, bash, smbclient, nmblookup and I'm pretty sure that OS X server includes the GPL3 licensed Samba, OS X still comes with gcc, and I believe it will for the next two releases at least. CUPS, the printer daemon that Apple bought some years ago is still a GPLed software and it appears that Apple has done nothing to change that. Things can change and Apple is a great contributor to LLVM, but Apple appear to have no trouble with the GPL, only trouble with gcc, but that is easy to understand.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  The current issue with Apple and GPL stems from the App Store. FSF says you can't limit distribution of the code, which is reasonable since they own the license to the code. Apple says we want to limit the distribution of the app, which is reasonable since they own the channel. Just like I tell my kids, if you can't get along with the neighbor, don't go play in their back yard. Sounds like Apple is taking that advice and people in the free community are offended.

richardhenry 16y ago

Although the underlying story is interesting, I'm not going to vote up this particular article due to the horribly misleading title.

riffraff 16y ago
I am under the impression that phoronix usually does poor "journalism". I still need to understand why file systems get tested using compression and compilation benchmarks.

wazoox 16y ago

Phoronix. The tabloid of free software geek news website. Their best known speciality: sensationalist articles based on ridiculous benchmarks.