Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP Usual RMS Rant]
>>
>> +--------------+
>> | Don't feed |
>> | the trolls |
>> | |
>> | thank you |
>> +--------------+
>> | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> ....\ /....
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nicholas
>>
>>
>
> Since RMS is a troll, I highly suggest you immediately uninstall all
> software with any code written by him, including the GNU C Compiler suite.
Obviously you can't read. I have no beef with RMS, it's just that his rants
are off topic, thus the feeble, yet humerous attempt (borrowed from Rik) to
curb the inevitable flurry of replies.
Cheers,
Nicholas
>
> Obviously you can't read. I have no beef with RMS, it's just that his rants
> are off topic, thus the feeble, yet humerous attempt (borrowed from Rik) to
> curb the inevitable flurry of replies.
>
I disagree with your statement that his rants are off topic. Unless you
believe that the purpose of Linux isn't the advancement of Free software,
then debating the merits of using non-Free software in the development
process of a major cornerstone of the Free software movement is
fundamentally on topic.
It's really the pointless flames (things like disregarding someone's
argument because their consistent and vigilent in what they believe) that
are off topic.
This email, is also off topic for the lkml, which is why I'm not posting
to everyone on the list.
--Zac
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:58:26AM -0400, Zac Hansen wrote:
> I disagree with your statement that his rants are off topic. Unless you
> believe that the purpose of Linux isn't the advancement of Free software,
> then debating the merits of using non-Free software in the development
> process of a major cornerstone of the Free software movement is
> fundamentally on topic.
Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
compiler suite.
In the answer to that question lies the truth about the merits of Richard's
rant against those with dissimilar opinions to his own.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> compiler suite.
Ah, but that's the point!
The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.
correction, bitkeeper doesn't let you bootstrap for free. if you buy a
bitkeeper licence then you can do anything with it you want.
the limit is only on the FREE use of bitkeeper.
David Lang
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 02:00:15 -0700
> From: Aaron Lehmann <[email protected]>
> To: Mark Mielke <[email protected]>
> Cc: Zac Hansen <[email protected]>,
> Nicholas Wourms <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> > compiler suite.
>
> Ah, but that's the point!
>
> The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
> using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
> commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:40:56AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> > compiler suite.
>
> Ah, but that's the point!
>
> The bitkeeper license won't allow you to bootstrap a competing project
> using bitkeeper. If the same clauses existed in the licenses of these
> commercial compilers, we wouldn't have GCC.
<raised brows>
_really_?
No, really?
How quaint. So RMS et.al. would be unable to implement a simple C compiler
in MACRO-10 and use it for bootstrap? Or clone aforementioned MACRO-10?
Pathetic. And I suspect undeserved - I'm no fan of RMS, but I don't believe
that what you claim is true.
Now could we fscking take that crap to some place where it would be on-topic?
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Zac Hansen wrote:
> This email, is also off topic for the lkml, which is why I'm not posting
> to everyone on the list.
Thanks for sparing us...
--
function.linuxpower.ca
> > I disagree with your statement that his rants are off topic. Unless you
> > believe that the purpose of Linux isn't the advancement of Free software,
> > then debating the merits of using non-Free software in the development
> > process of a major cornerstone of the Free software movement is
> > fundamentally on topic.
>
> Ask Richard if GCC was ever initially bootstrapped using a non-GPL
> compiler suite.
As far as I know:
It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
of the C front end. The GNU project was originally developed without
using any proprietary software.
So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
least to begin with, all non-proprietary.
John
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:46:04PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
> re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
> of the C front end. The GNU project was originally developed without
> using any proprietary software.
> So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
> least to begin with, all non-proprietary.
Even if this was true (I have no reason to doubt it)...
Is the idea that "Free Software Providers" must use "Free Software" to
produce a reasonable decree from the king of "Free Software"?
Is it reasonable that if I happen to have some super fancy memory allocation
routines that automatically locate and resolve all memory leaks in my
program, I *cannot use it when producing GPL code* as the software was
purchased?
This becomes hypocrisy. RMS hates Bit Keeper because it requires people in
competing fields to purchase a license, but RMS feels that people are doing
acts of "evil" by using software that isn't "Free" (RMS TM).
Basically... RMS gets to choose your software for you...
Which is completely besides the *real* point. CVS is crap for larger
products, and Sub-Version (and other competitors) are only in their
initial stages of life. If something better than Bit Keeper existed for
free, doesn't RMS have enough faith in the people who develop Linux to
*TRUST* that they would be using it already?
RMS is setting standards based on his own personal agenda that allows
him to be king of "Free" software. I don't want a king. I want the
freedom to produce free software in the way that *I* find most
convenient, completely free of political crap. If I wanted to be a
policitian, I wouldn't have learned C.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:46:04PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> > It was initially developed as a C front end to VUCK, but was later
> > re-written, using none of the VUCK code, but initially keeping parts
> > of the C front end. The GNU project was originally developed without
> > using any proprietary software.
>
> > So, non-GPL software was used, but the software that was used was, at
> > least to begin with, all non-proprietary.
>
> Even if this was true (I have no reason to doubt it)...
>
> Is the idea that "Free Software Providers" must use "Free Software" to
> produce a reasonable decree from the king of "Free Software"?
It's up to everybody to decide what suits them. I was only answering
a question about the GNU project, I wasn't trying to tell anybody what
software they should and shouldn't use.
John.