Re: Regarding the "TheOtherGCCBasedFortranCompiler" Wiki Page

[Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>]

Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Brooks Moses wrote:
> > That's my take on the matter, too.  (And I agree with Paul Thomas that 
> > it doesn't need to be anywhere near this long to do that, but then I 
> > don't think I've seen any disagreements on that particular point.)
> >
> > In response to this and the other discussion, I have rewritten the 
> > "history" section of the page to the following, which I think takes 
> > everybody's comments into account:
>
> I like this.  One thing this doesn't address is _why_ we didn't keep happily
> porting enhancements from g95, 'open source' and all, but admittedly that's
> hard to explain without 'allegations' :-)

Thanks!

> > I have also included a "license" section, with the following text:
[snip]
> It's not our duty to educate users about the pitfalls of g95, so we can also
> do without this section, I guess.

I've removed it.

(For the record, prior to removing it, I'd edited it down to the 
following, to correct my errors in referring to the LGPL -- thanks to 
Andrew and Steve for their prompt correction!)

----
As of late 2005, the g95 runtime library is licensed under the GPL 
alone, without the [runtime exception | 
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html] included 
in the licenses for GCC runtime libraries.
----

(Oh, one other thing I should note -- I updated the g95 link to what 
appears to be the current preferred address: g95.org.)

- Brooks