Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:15:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:15:43 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:19614 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:15:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:21:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Aaron Lehmann cc: Mark Mielke , Zac Hansen , Nicholas Wourms , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new In-Reply-To: <20021020090015.GE25042@vitelus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1044 Lines: 32 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. _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? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/