egcs

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #274,344 by altmann 11/29/06 1:00:20 PM Reply	egcs -- Chris Altmann
Post #274,348 by CRConrad 11/29/06 3:25:39 PM Reply	That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it?
Post #274,350 by pwhysall 11/29/06 4:09:00 PM Reply	Didn't that get un-forked, too? Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator] [link\|http://darwinia.co.uk/\|[image\|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png\|0\|Darwinia\|\|]]
Post #274,351 by crazy 11/29/06 4:43:22 PM Reply	Yup - but not over license issues The FSF crowd REALLY want GPL 3. It seems most of the rest of the world does not. Since is if currently "Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;", RMS can made it 3.0 in a blink. Which in turn can have a huge affect on the hosted market. I'd bet Amazon would fund a few dozen people to keep the 2.0 branch alive.
Post #274,417 by CRConrad 11/30/06 6:29:13 AM Reply	Why - is Amazon in the business of distributing gcc? Or does the GPLv3 say anything compiled with gcc becomes GPLed? Bull fucking shit, man -- this would only hit Novell if it tries to stick to that Anti-GPL patent scam it [cooked up with \| got suckered into by] Microsoft. (Just like the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization provisions wouldn't hit anybody but Tivo and those who, like they, try to lock away their code from the user.) Nobody else; and not even them, if they'd just stop trying to circumvent the original spirit of the GPL. P.S: "Version 1.2 or any later ..."? ITYM "2", right? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]

Change GPL retroactively? - (andread) - (19) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:11:47 PM EST

Nothing retroactive about it - (crazy) - (3) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:40:27 PM EST

Re: Nothing retroactive about it - (andread) - (2) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:13:57 PM EST

Define your goal and possible usage -NT - (crazy) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:16:01 PM EST

Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can... - (CRConrad) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:38:39 PM EST

Nope. - (folkert) - (13) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:06:01 PM EST

Nope to you - (crazy) - (12) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:17:16 PM EST

I disagree. - (folkert) - (11) - Nov. 28, 2006, 05:46:17 PM EST

Yes and no - (crazy) - (10) - Nov. 28, 2006, 07:37:41 PM EST

You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:09:55 AM EST

Dunno - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 06:57:32 AM EST

There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be... - (folkert) - (7) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:13:17 AM EST

But the issue is not just the kernel - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:00:18 AM EST

Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who? - (CRConrad) - (5) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:29:49 AM EST

egcs -NT - (altmann) - (4) - Nov. 29, 2006, 01:00:20 PM EST

That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:25:39 PM EST

Didn't that get un-forked, too? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:09:00 PM EST

Yup - but not over license issues - (crazy) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:43:22 PM EST

Why - is Amazon in the business of *distributing gcc*? - (CRConrad) - Nov. 30, 2006, 06:29:13 AM EST

Thanks Gentlemen - (andread) - Nov. 29, 2006, 09:25:18 AM EST

iwethey.org

Happy strategic planning.
60 ms