i would like to add to this. some time ago, i took part in a FNF sponsered
survey on what features, progress , direction gt.m users would like to see in
gt.m. i was wondering if bhasker would be able to share the results of this
survey.
also further greg's thoughts, is it necessary to extend
Isn't this one of the reasons GT.M was kind enough to release the source code, to allow the _community_ to produce changes/improvements/additions? Except for the very core functions that are not open-source, I believe we have the technology. We can rebuild it. ;-) On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:27
I apologize if there was some earlier context to thread that I am misssing and
which might help me make a more meaningful reply. I am traveling and am a few
hundred e-mail messages behind, but happened to see this at the top of the
stack and couldn't resist replying!
We have conducted a
Chuck --
I am not sure what core functions are not open source. Every last line of
source code for GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux has been released under the GPL.
Note that we have chosen not to release the source code for GT.M on other
platforms under the GPL (it is available for a price to those who
Bhaskar,
I was thinking of hard disk writes - a misinterpretation from talks
we've had, for which I gladly apologize.
On Oct 6, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Bhaskar, KS wrote:
Chuck --
I am not sure what core functions are not open source. Every last
line of source code for GT.M on x86
