I am not sure what you mean, but here is what I am expecting from all this:
For all documented interfaces GNUstep and Apple have in common, given all documented possible sets of input, both interfaces should emit the same result with the same side effect, not regarding how it is implemented. I used to have a lot of issues porting an existing OS X CLI app to Linux but it never worked. That is why I am sort if "whining" here. Sent from my iPhone > On 2013年6月19日, at 23:05, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: > > These last two postings must have slipped in before the moderation took > effect on the mail server. > > Greg > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Forgot to mention, OS X 10.9 is based on iOS 6. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2013年6月19日, at 22:33, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> Maxthon, >>> >>> Please do not post information that is either under NDA or which has been >>> obtained via reverse engineering methods. While reverse engineering might >>> be legal in some countries it is not legal in all countries. >>> >>> Graham is correct in what he said. The FSF acknowledges and respects >>> intellectual property rights. By ignoring these rules you are jeopardizing >>> the project. Please respect the rules we have laid down for you here >>> regarding the posting of such information to this list. >>> >>> I am the list moderator, I have flagged your subscription for moderation. >>> This doesn't mean you've been removed from the list, it simply means that >>> your posts will be forwarded to the list after review by me at my >>> discretion. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gregory >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Graham Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to reinvent it. From >>>> "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism" >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html): >>>> >>>> > Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end >>>> > proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link >>>> > them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's >>>> > requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the >>>> > requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C >>>> > front end free software. >>>> >>>> The Free Software community has got where it is today by acknowledging the >>>> complex system of intellectual property protection as it exists, and using >>>> it in novel ways in order to extend freedoms to the users of its software. >>>> This has been done, as we see in the example above, by respecting and >>>> working with the legal systems in place, not by ignoring them or >>>> proclaiming that they do not apply. Sometimes it means that things we >>>> might want to do such as reverse engineering proprietary software should >>>> not be done. Other times it means that things other people might want to >>>> do such as incorporating free software into proprietary products should >>>> not be done. So there are sometimes downsides, and sometimes benefits: >>>> either way there is a clear set of values in play that lead to this game >>>> having certain rules. >>>> >>>> You are, in ignoring these rules, ignoring the values that many of the >>>> people on this list share with the organisation that "owns", in its way, >>>> the GNUstep project. It is not a surprise that these people are, as a >>>> result, asking you to avoid repeating your mistakes or even calling for >>>> you to be removed from the mailing list. Please consider this. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Graham. >>>> >>>> On 19 Jun 2013, at 14:18, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Given that: >>>> > >>>> > 1) Apple did not patent Cocoa and/or their implementation of >>>> > CoreFoundation, and >>>> > 2) GNUstep contains no Apple code >>>> > >>>> > We will be good, as Apple have no reason to drag us into trouble. We are >>>> > not infringing any IP at all if that two conditions is met. >>>> > >>>> > Just look at Mono which is a binary-compatible reimplementation of >>>> > Microsoft .net and they did not complain (and even eventually >>>> > advertising it to some extent). >>>> > >>>> > Sent from my iPhone >>>> > >>>> >> On 2013年6月19日, at 21:05, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Why do you want to transform GNUstep into something else ? >>>> >> Why do you want to implement exactly the same way it's done by Apple ? >>>> >> Maybe you are excited to discover technical details and I completely >>>> >> understand that but >>>> >> your discoveries won't be implemented. >>>> >> What you are trying to do I have already followed that path by trying >>>> >> to implement CoreGraphics >>>> >> using reverse engineering and CFLite and it was fun to do but at the >>>> >> end it was useless for >>>> >> legal reasons among other things. >>>> >> I should have participated to GNUstep instead of loosing too much time >>>> >> on this project. >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Gnustep-dev mailing list >>>> >> [email protected] >>>> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Gnustep-dev mailing list >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnustep-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory Casamento >>> Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant >>> yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa >>> (240)274-9630 (Cell) >>> http://www.gnustep.org >>> http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > > > > -- > Gregory Casamento > Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant > yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa > (240)274-9630 (Cell) > http://www.gnustep.org > http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
