Regarding the "TheOtherGCCBasedFortranCompiler" Wiki Page

[Tobias Schlüter]

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' :-)

> I have also included a "license" section, with the following text:
> ----
> Both g95 and gfortran are released under the GPL as free software, 
> allowing their source code to be freely reused in other GPL-licensed 
> projects.
> 
> As of late 2005, the g95 runtime library is also licensed under the GPL, 
> rather than the LGPL. Compiled binaries include code from the runtime 
> library; thus, this license only permits the distribution of binaries 
> compiled using g95 if they are released with source code as free 
> software under a GPL-compatible license.  The gfortran runtime library 
> is licensed under the LGPL, and thus there is no such restriction on 
> binaries compiled using gfortran.
> ----
> 
> I am unsure whether this should go or stay, and would welcome opinions. 
>   (In particular, we are certain that this is still true, yes?)

It's not our duty to educate users about the pitfalls of g95, so we can also
do without this section, I guess.

Thanks for doing this,
- Tobi