[surjan@chem.elte.hu: x86_64 fortran]

[Steven Bosscher]

On Saturday 17 July 2004 02:19, Douglas Cox wrote:
> On Friday 16 July 2004 05:41 pm, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > If you equate "GNU production" with "uses the GPL", then I suppose
> > you can claim g95 is a GNU production.  Andy slapped the GPL onto
> > the code, yet does not folloiw the tenets of the GPL.  If you mean
> > "GNU production" as in a "FSF sponsored project", then no g95 is
> > not a GNU production.
>
> How does this affect your view on the porting of code from g95 to gfortran?
> I don't remember any objections being raised.  Seems like, in your view, it
> would be "tainting" gfortran...

In fact, G95 is still listed as a GNU project.  Andy doesn't always
make his most recent sources available, but the GPL doesn't require
you to put your sources in CVS.

But actually, I think this whole discussion is pointless and useless.
If anyone has anything to add, please do so off-list.  It's bad enough
that there is so much confusion about g95 vs. gfortran, and throwing
back and forth accusations is not going to help anyone.

Gr.
Steven