We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:

| On 23/03/07, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
| > > In which case, the companies concerned, rather than the individuals,
| > > are volunteers: they have no contractual obligation to the FSF.  Marc
| > > Espie's argument stands.
| >
| > I don't see that.  They are "volunteers" in terms of what they choose to
| > contribute to the FSF, but not at all such in terms of what they *work on*.
| > And I thought that discussion was about the latter.
| >
| 
| I refrained from replying that because I think discussing the
| semantics of the word 'volunteer' when applied to for-profit companies
| or more precisely for individuals that work in for-profit companies is
| way off-topic and not very helpful in order to solve the problem at
| hand.

And you could have as well assumed that Marc Espie is not totally
ignorant of the GCC project social aspects.

[ as a matter of fact, his relaying "remor report" surrounding EGCS
  back in summer 1997 partly convinced me to spend resources on  EGCS,
  then GCC. ] 

-- Gaby