RE: GNUStep: An Apology for Announcing Donation of ProprietarySoftware to the Project

[Scott Francis]

thanks all for the replies - i fell into age-old trap that the "free" ==
$$ instead of free == opensource/free source...  doh.  must be the
holiday celebrations addling my wits :)  

sorry for the bandwidth, but i do appreciate the responses!

happy holidays,
scott


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-gnustep-admin@gnu.org
[mailto:discuss-gnustep-admin@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Fred Kiefer
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:33 PM
To: Nicola Pero
Cc: Jeremy Bettis; discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Subject: Re: GNUStep: An Apology for Announcing Donation of
ProprietarySoftware to the Project


I don't want to add more mails to this discussion, I just want to state
that I can't agree more to what Nicola wrote. I would not be working on
GNUstep if this project wasn't under LGPL and this is more important
than what ever I think of the original announcement or the apology or
even of paid software as a general issue. And of course Adam is no
"dolt" (A term I had to look up in my copy of Webster's. Isn't free
software great, we learn so many new things every day...).

Fred


Nicola Pero wrote:
> 
> > This is just one more reason that GNUStep should not be a GNU 
> > project.
> 
> Some of our most dedicated developers (certainly myself) wouldn't be 
> working on GNUstep at all if GNUstep wasn't a GNU project.  Don't 
> forget that and mind your words on this topic, 'cause you'll get 
> flamed otherwise.
> 
> > Other reasons:
> 
> > GNUstep could use other publicaly avaliable code (like darwin or 
> > other apple changes to gcc/gdb) without a copyright assignment.
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get your point - who cares ?  what do we need that code for ?
> 
> first, we are trying to build a free software environment.  well, 
> we're not trying - we've done it.  the dream of many - a free 
> nextstep-like environment ... it's here - we miss gui details, we miss

> applications, but we have to code those anyway - it's just a matter of

> time.  so - what would be the point at this stage to mix apple 
> obscure-licensed code with our clean free GNU (L)GPL code ?  just to 
> spoil the whole point of the project at this stage ?  if you don't 
> care about the fact it's free, and if you want apple proprietary 
> software, go use apple software.
> 
> btw, apple is already merging their gcc changes into the mainstream 
> GNU GCC.  They seem to be much less afraid of GNU than their users, 
> and much of the software on darwin is GNU anyway.
> 
> > -Wno-import could be the default
> 
> This has nothing to do with GNUstep being part of the GNU project - 
> it's a purely technical decision, while GNUstep being part of the GNU 
> project is an ethical/philosophical/licensing question.
> 
> #import is deprecated - on technical grounds - by any gcc compiler 
> hacker we had the chance of talking to, both GNU and Apple folks - 
> they have strong views on that point and they keep the warning turned 
> on in the compiler by default.
> 
> I personally think we don't have much to argue with them - they are 
> right.
> 
> Anyway, if you don't want that warning, you should be discussing the 
> technical bits with them, not blaiming the fact the GNUstep is part of

> the GNU project - that's meaningless.
> 
> gnustep-make already allows you to change the flags very simply - by 
> just adding
> 
> ADDITIONAL_OBJC_FLAGS += -Wno-import
> 
> to your GNUmakefile.  If you have any suggestion for how to make it 
> simpler, let me know - I'll implement a simpler way if you can suggest

> a reasonable one.  But the fact we're part of the GNU project has 
> nothing to do with these technical details.
> 
> Just to put things in context, I personally would like -Wall to be the

> default in gnustep-make, but I don't blaim the GNU project if it 
> isn't. Everyone of us has its own preferred flags for compiling, the 
> GNU project has nothing to do with it - we can discuss how to make it 
> simpler for people to choose their preferite flags, but what has this 
> to do with GNUstep begin part of the GNU project at all ?
> 
> > Wouldn't it be nice to do what's best for the project and not what 
> > is best for the GNU manafesto?
> 
> I don't get it - what exactly is your problem with GNUstep being part 
> of GNU ?  You have all the software free on the internet, you can 
> download everything you want, you can see the sources, modify them, 
> recompile them, use them, package them, even sell them, what do you 
> want more ?
> 
> If what you want more is being able to turn them into proprietary 
> software (or to mix them with proprietary software in such a way that 
> you can't use them without having proprietary software), then I'm very

> happy you can't do it - our code is meant to be free for everyone, and

> forever.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org 
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep



_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep