

Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC? - spcmnspff
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU4Nw

======
avar
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
What part of the copyright assignment process do you find bothersome?

~~~
pieter
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-disc...](https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/misc/www/request-disclaim.changes?view=markup&root=mpfr)

* 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

~~~
loup-vaillant
Yes, but, after the first shot:

* 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. Since you did, you don't have to do anything.

I'm confused though: Apple already have assigned copyright. Yet, they say they
will stop doing it, as if it wasn't automatic, even when done once. Either
they assign copyright in an unusual way, or they actively _stopped_ it.
Somebody knows which it could be?

~~~
froydnj
Just because Apple has a copyright assignment on file (i.e. saying that they
are able to assign copyright to the FSF) does not mean that every piece of
code Apple writes--even if it's connected to GCC--is assigned to the FSF.

So Apple can write GCC patches, Apple can release GCC patches, but it does not
follow that those patches are assigned. I guess that means they've actively
stopped.

~~~
zppx
Sort of the relationship of Android with the Linux kernel, for me this is the
same as publishing a GPLed patch to OpenSSH or something like that, this is
immense disrespect towards the developer community of a project, which does
have its culture.

FSF has done this as well by changing the license of their software from
GPL2/LGPL2 to GPL3/LGPL3 and turning the GameSWF (released under public
domain) into the GPLed Gnash.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Are you saying that forks are rude? But they're the _point_ of both Free
Software and Open Source!

------
pohl
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>

~~~
protomyth
direct links to thread: <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>

~~~
pohl
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
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
Actually actually, it was NeXT who made that choice.

And the license itself does not require copyright assignment. Rather, the FSF
does.

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

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

------
hackermom
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
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
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.

