Just so we're completely clear, Google has been an incredibly long-term contributor to basically all parts of LLVM. So have sooooo many other companies. This is a really cool project IMO, but it doesn't represent a significant change in who or how much anyone is contributing to LLVM... It's a drop in the bucket.
And for the record, LLVM is doing fine with all these corporate contributors.
I'm not trying to say that this can't be a concern for OSS communities and projects, but LLVM seems to have a quite successful and sustainable model here.
The problem is that neither the original thread, nor the threads here (which seem to be quite heavy on Google commenters) answers the question 'why?'.
I think this wouldn't have caused nearly as much commotion as it does now, if the original post explained the technical reasons for starting a new libc. What problems do existing implementations have? How could a new libc address these issues?
Instead, this has an air of (regardless whether this is true): we are going to write a new libc for completely opaque company-driven reasons, and either you accept it or you we will make it happen anyway.
And for the record, LLVM is doing fine with all these corporate contributors.
I'm not trying to say that this can't be a concern for OSS communities and projects, but LLVM seems to have a quite successful and sustainable model here.