On 10/16/2009 07:36 PM, David Greene wrote:> On Friday 16 October 2009 02:52, Fons Rademakers wrote: > >> At CERN we had already a number of people questioning the wisdom of basing >> our developments on LLVM as it is perceived as an Apple thing, that could >> turn on us at anytime, and this position does not help. > > Ditto. I've heard this more than once from people here. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >In my opinion, it's not just about that aspect. Not having openess in an OS project is bad, but in this case, I wasn't able to make it to the meeting, and I've a strong personal interest in clang, and I'd really like to watch the State of clang talk. Also the OpenCL talk (probably, as I don't know...) contains lots of interesting news about an upcoming technology which will be probably very important for every professional who wants to use parallelism and GPU computing power efficiently (efficient as in less dev time for more performance). And that's just beside the bad PR which will be (probably) soon picked up by news sites. Let's hope that the responsible person for this changes his/her mind soon, so everyone can calm down. Cornelius
On Friday 16 October 2009 15:36, Cornelius wrote:> In my opinion, it's not just about that aspect. Not having openess in an > OS project is bad, but in this case, I wasn't able to make it to the > meeting, and I've a strong personal interest in clang, and I'd really > like to watch the State of clang talk. > Also the OpenCL talk (probably, as I don't know...) contains lots of > interesting news about an upcoming technology which will be probably > very important for every professional who wants to use parallelism and > GPU computing power efficiently (efficient as in less dev time for more > performance). > And that's just beside the bad PR which will be (probably) soon picked > up by news sites.But it's more than just PR. When I agreed to be a speaker, I signed off on having my talk made publicly available. There does seem to be a double-standard here and that's concerning. I understand that none of the Apple speakers are happy about this. Corporate paranoia is the problem here. -Dave
I'd also like to register my disappointment that the slides and videos aren't available. On Friday, October 16, 2009 4:46 PM, David Greene wrote:> When I agreed to be a speaker, I signed off on having my > talk made publicly available. There does seem to be a > double-standard here and that's concerning.There are few things about this whole situation that aren't clear to me: 1. With what organization were these speaker agreements made? 2. Did the speakers from Apple sign the same agreements? 3. If the agreements were made with an organization other than Apple, on what basis are the materials being witheld? 3a. That is, do the Dev Meeting organizers, or whichever organization it was that issued the agreements, already have legal permission to release them? 3b. What would be the consequences of releasing the materials without Apple's approval? 4. If the agreements were made with Apple, why? 4a. Is there a need for the community to establish an independent legal entity (similar to the FSF or the Apache Software Foundation) to govern LLVM development and organize developer meetings? -Ken