David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > From that day on, he set off on a quest to ban proprietary software > > and encourage the free sharing of source code by all means. > > That was what started his unrest. It did not set him off immediately, > and "by all means" is certainly exaggerated. He did not, for example, > condone using guns in that respect.
Not yet. But I won't be surprised to hear something like that from your fellow lunatic who is incapable to distinguish rights-reserved software from human slavery. But anyway, here's good example of "by all means": -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:59:32 -0700 (MST) From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: java backend If it is possible to compile languages such as C into Java byte codes, I see a great danger. The danger is that people will use Java byte codes to hook GCC up to proprietary back ends and proprietary front ends. They could also generate Java byte codes, run a proprietary optimizer, and feed the result back into GCC. In effect, the support for Java byte codes would undermine the goals of the GPL. If your changes really do make such activities much easier, more feasible in practice, then I think it would have been better if you had never implemented the feature. And now it would be better now if you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they exist. Of course, someone else really determined could redo the work, the extra burden of doing so might dissuade people from trying. -----------------------------------8<----------------------------------- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html (java bytecode considered bad) regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss