[sverige]

Snark aside, Google's desire to own the de facto non-GPL libc is worthy of a discussion in the broader community. Your expressed desire to limit the discussion and unwillingness to directly address the issues raised by Rich Felker speaks volumes.

[jchw]

- Google doesn’t claim to want to own it, at least not anywhere that I’ve seen written. They just want to design it, for their needs.

- Nowhere do they say it should be the “defacto” libc. If anything, Clang and libc++ remain not defacto. Glibc would likely continue to be the preferred libc in my personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

[sverige]

My concern is that if Google's libc becomes part of the LLVM package, it will push out Clang and musl and any others. It should be a separate package like the others.

[jchw]

I assume you mean glibc instead of Clang here.

Well, I think personally making it part of LLVM works to the community’s advantage. If Google is the sole owner and maintainer, external forces will have less impact, much to the detriment of the library quality (imo.) As a part of LLVM, there are many huge players with interest in improving the library and many maintainers externally.

Google and other big companies already contribute to LLVM, so I don’t think the status quo is changing at all.