Re: 3.2 PATCH: Fully support parallel gnat1/gnatbind builds

[Marc Espie <espie at nerim dot net>]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:58:13AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> <Yes, and I know the FSF arguments.  I still think they're overly paranoid.
> Heck, I'm working on a BSD system. We don't have the GPL as a failsafe to
> guarantee that evvvviiill commercial people don't steal our code, and it
> works pretty good so far.


> well of course quite a bit of BSD stuff has been proprietarized. I trust
> you are aware of this :-)

And it doesn't bother me THAT much, since the original code is still
available, and free !

It's just a question of preferring that people do the right thing because
they think it's right, rather than forcing it down their throat.

Well, I'll shut up about this after this last message, since the political
part is becoming increasingly off-topic (please reply off-list if you must).

I'm just still miffed whenever political arguments override sound technical
decisions.

A C back-end is a Good Thing for a large variety of technical reasons.  
Like I said, it also allows code to interoperate with other free code that 
doesn't fall under the GPL...

Depends what you think your ideal world is. Is it a world with loads of
free software under various licences, or a world where all free software
is GPL'ed, because it needs to be to interlock with other GPL software.

Note that such issues can cause project splits down the line.  It was
barely avoided for gcc a few years back, and I believe that these issues
may lead to another bump in a few months/years... that it hasn't occurred
yet mainly comes from the fact that gcc is BIG, and all people that could
get involved in a second similar project are much too busy to consider it
seriously.