Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? (really ia64 port and NDAs)

[<reedkotler at hotmail dot com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Buck" <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com>
To: "Jim Wilson" <wilson@cygnus.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? (really ia64 port and NDAs)


>
> > Technically, there is a conflict between NDAs and the GPL.  As a
> > practical matter, it is a moot issue.  This is because all parties
> > involved agree voluntarily and informally (i.e. a gentlemen's agreement)
> > to respect the terms of both the NDA and the GPL despite the conflict.
> > This makes it possible to work on GPL software under NDA.
>
> Furthermore, in the particular case of the ia64 port, RMS was informed
> about the plans and accepted them, at least in outline, and progress
> reports were regularly made to the public (on the ia64linux web site among
> other places).  As the FSF is the only organization with standing to sue
> if the GPL is violated, and RMS makes decisions for FSF, that's pretty
> much the end of the legality argument.
>
my understanding is the GPL is a "General Public License" which means
that anyone in the "General Public" can sue. However, they must prove
damages and such.

> But we're entitled to ask people for more than just the bare minimum
> required to escape prosecution, lawsuits, or jail.  We're supposed to be a
> community here.  The ia64 project has been reasonably good at
> communication, at least for those who knew where to look, but some other
> gcc-related projects have been done much more quietly and privately than
> many of us would like.
>
> The document http://gcc.gnu.org/contributewhy.html is highly relevant
> here.  (The text is mostly by Jeff Law, RMS, and me, though the whole SC
> reviewed it, so I'd like to think of it as something both the FSF and the
> commercial contributors to gcc can sign up to).  It acknowledges that
> sometimes there are reasons for a time-limited NDA, but still strongly
> requests that other developers be kept informed.  In my mind, this
> document is making the same requests of Red Hat, CodeSourcery, and ACT as
> it is making of "outside developers".
>
> In the case of the IA64 port, it would have been nice if more progress
> reports had been made available to the gcc list, this could have been done
> without violating anyone's trade secrets.  But generally speaking, I don't
> have a problem with that port in particular.  I'd like to see more
> discussion of some of the other major projects that Red Hat has taken on
> -- I accept that the customer who pays gets first access to the code,
> but more input from non-Red Hat developers on the design would probably
> mean that both Red Hat's customers and the general public winds up with
> a better solution.
>
>
>