"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list--
>
>I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is
>there any possibility of negoiating a way out of this
>because I dont feel that it:
Doubtful. The first thing you must understand is that the
FSF
This whole issue is reminding of Randal's defense.
The jury was far too mystified to decide in his favor, only the judge understood the
arguement, hence no jail time ( for a 3 time felon ?? )
I think this thread started as a result of a desire to use GNU code in Perl6 where the
license would
John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is there any
> possibility of negoiating a way out of this because I dont feel that it:
> a) benefits the world of users
> and
> b) makes a whole lotta sense considering that ATT has attempted to go
>
John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [someone else]
>> Also, note that if we use a modified version of the GPL, it will likely
>> be incompatible with the real GPL, which will cause big licensing
>> problems.
> In a compomise, everybody gives a little, otherwise everybody suffers;
The dual
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 03:55:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not really sure why you're bringing the UWIN GCC thing up on this
> mailing list
Amen. Could we just kill it here, please?
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, an
>From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list--
I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is there any possibility of
negoiating a way out of this because I dont feel that it:
a) benefits the world of users
and
b) makes a whole lotta sense considering that ATT has attempted to go the
