This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: SCO systems and 'Target Deprecation'


Let me start by saying I'm sorry for you and your fellow workers for the
position you are in.  It is a real shame, but it does not change the issue
at hand, and I would very much like GCC to act on that.

> > Err...  I think the L in GNU GPL stood for License.
> And I thought the GP was general public, not "general public we like, 
> agree with politically, socially or morally".

I am sure the license does not say that the developers of a piece of
software must support something/someone they morally disagree with very
much.  Besides, SCO's threats basically make it impossible for many of us to
work on GCC because according to SCO we're not even allowed to use Linux
unless we give in to their extortion attempts.  Give me one good reason to
help making a better compiler for SCO, then. 

I am sure many people at SCO are still the nice Caldera people they always
were.  But they must understand that their employer is putting many people
in trouble with so far nothing but allegations, and that they hurt more
people with their actions than we would when GCC would no longer support any
SCO targets.  Therefore I still think we should stop supporting all SCO
targets.

> For obvious reasons I can comment very little on what has gone on in 
> this thread although my restraint has been the hardest thing I have had 
> to endure in along time. All I can say is I encourage people to think
> about the words "open", and to look at the real scope of SCO's lawsuits 

The word "open" apparently doesn't have a meaning for SCO, or they would
finally show, in public, without that rediculous NDA, the parts of Linux
that violate SCO copyrights.

And the real scope of the SCO lawsuit is that they are telling everyone that
they cannot use Linux unless they buy an SCO license, for a _binary_only_
use of Linux, with no rights to modify, redistribute, etc.  That is a direct
violation of the rights of the people who have contributed code to Linux
that SCO does claim to own.

Basically, SCO is telling people that SCO owns all of Linux (including GNU,
they never mention that it's only the kernel, making their FUD even worse)
and on top of that  they encourage people to violate the GPL!  That alone
should be reason enough for the FSF to say, "hey, screw SCO!".

Gr.
Steven

 

> not at reactionary, often misguided and religiously "patriotic" 
> assertions made in the heat of passion and not in the cold light of
> logic.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]