3 ms·
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
by 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 agodirect 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 agoThread 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 agoSo 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 agoEr, 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. ;-)