On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Bill Page wrote: > I am not aware of any of Tim's past sins -- only his present > ones. ;) Building Axiom from sources only, which was apparently > a requirement imposed by restrictive licensing conditions which > apparently prevented any of the previously commercial binary > versions of Axiom to be distributed along with the Axiom source > code, was certainly a challenge because of the way that Axiom > had been designed to be "bootstrapped" from an existing running > copy. But this is no different than the situation with most > compilers and in particular GNU C (gcc). Just for the record this is not true. Arthur Norman offered to provide an open-source version of CCL to the project which would have allowed you to build and distribute a Unix version of Axiom from the original NAG sources without any modifications. I provided copies of the Axiom product to several people on the list so you would have had no problem bootstrapping the first open-source versions from the NAG code.
Eliminating the need for a running Axiom was a good thing to do, but if anything forced you to do it it was probably the decision to develop on GCL rather than CCL. Cheers, Mike. ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
