From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21719 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2006 05:34:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 21711 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2006 05:34:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:34:51 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m22so1027211nzf for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.20.11 with SMTP id x11mr4798918nzi; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.42 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601152134m58e47e0blc0afcc0ad1153060@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:34:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [commit] gdb_bytize arm-tdep.c Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200601151451.k0FEpVMH010877@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200601151451.k0FEpVMH010877@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 On 1/15/06, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I know there are quite a few commercial parties with interests in gdb. > Whenever I encounter things like this, I'd almost say they're just a > bunch of freeloaders. Heck, I'l just say it. They're a bunch of evil > capitalist freeloaders. I'm not sure that's accurate or fair. If a volunteer like yourself, working for their own satisfaction, contributes a port of GDB to some processor, and then finishes school or changes jobs or for whatever reason leaves the scene, how is that different from a commercial interest getting a contract to do a port but then later not allocating money to maintain the port? Do individuals have a moral obligation to stick around indefinitely? I think we all agree that unmaintained ports are a burden on GDB, and that it's in the project's interests to have policies in place for phasing out code nobody is willing to bring up to current standards.=20 But unmaintained code can come from many sources. But let's suppose it usually does come from commercial interests. It could nonetheless be true that companies exhibit *more* committement to their contributions than individuals, if companies simply contribute more overall. That is, even if most of our problems with unmaintained code can be traced back to corporate contributions, corporations could still be more committed maintainers, on a per-contribution basis. I don't know if that's true, but given that Cygnus and Red Hat routinely sell support contracts as follow-ups to port contracts, it wouldn't surprise me. This isn't some veiled personal counter-attack; it's clear you, Mark, are very committed to backing up your work. But I want to consider non-commercial contributors as a whole; treating the stars of the category as typical representatives is unfair. If there really is a problem here, then the steering committee is obliged to pursue policies to correct it. They're charged with protecting Project GNU's interests, not making sure GDB is a suitable money-making vehicle for private interests. But I think overall we're in a win-win situation, even if everyone doesn't get exactly what they want all the time.