Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

Yesterday on the mailing list for GCC is was brought up if Apple's Objective-C 2.0 patches for the GNU Compiler Collection could be merged back into the upstream GCC code-base as maintained by the Free Software Foundation. Even though Apple's modified GCC sources still reflect the FSF as the copyright holder and are licensed under the GNU GPLv2+, it doesn't look like Apple wants their compiler work going back upstream any longer...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODU4Nw

[BlackStar]

And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?

In any case, this is yet another sign that Apple does not intend well for FOSS.

[nanonyme]

And the obvious reason why Apple is doing this: http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/gl...ticleid=351537

[Ex-Cyber]

And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?

GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible (v3 has "further restrictions" from the perspective of v2). Also, IIRC the GCC project won't accept major contributions without the copyright being assigned to the FSF.

[eikenberry]

And the obvious question is, can Apple do this? If I understand correctly, Apple's code is released under the GPLv2. What is blocking upstream from grabbing this code integrating it into their GPLv3 codebase?

FSF requires any code being merged into gcc (or any of their projects) to have its copyright be assigned over to the FSF so the FSF maintains clear ownership of the code. This is what Apple stopped doing.

[anarki2]

gplv3 sucks, period.

[cl333r]

gplv3 sucks, period.

Who are you to judge it?

[BlackStar]

@eikenberry & Ex-Cyber: Oh, it's a matter of copyright assignment then. Makes sense.

@nanonyme: How is that in any way relevant to this matter? Explain please!

[allquixotic]

@nanonyme: How is that in any way relevant to this matter? Explain please!

Isn't it obvious? Someone could write Objective-C 2.0 code and compile it with GCC if they did this. If you pulled in the right bits and had a Mach-O backend, you could write stuff that runs on Cocoa without owning a Mac. Apple wants to make sure that the only way to write native iPhone/iPad apps is to buy a Mac. Of course that doesn't say anything about Mono, Qt, etc. which we can already use to write iPhone/iPad apps; these frameworks may become relevant in light of Apple's recent decision.

[ssam]

someone could make a go-gcc project, that picks up patches that dont have FSF copyright assignment. not sure if there is much point though. i dont think there is much use of objective-C outside apple.