Re: GNAT on Mac (was: Current state of Ada 9X compilers)

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!vladimir@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Vl adimir Vukicevic)]

In article <2888m9$p1h@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
 writes:
>In article <28858c$212@aggedor.rmit.OZ.AU> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmi
t.edu.au> writes:
>>I presume that if Sun gets a software patent of the sort that the LPF
>>disagrees with, the logical consequence of this policy would be for
>>GNU/FSF to no longer support any Sun product, including a certain GNAT
>>Sparc port?
>>
>>Is this presumption invalid and if so why?
>
>Two comments: First of all, the FSF doesn't "support" products in the
>normal sense of the word.  Although FSF and their volunteers do try to
>provide bugfixes when practical, there is no commitment to do so.
>Commercial organizations such as Cygnus will offer support contracts
>on FSF software.  "Support" here is used in a more colloquial meaning.
>
>Now to get to your substantive point: there is a significant
>difference between merely obtaining a software patent and what Apple
>has done.  Although I cannot speak for the LPF, nor is it practical to
>speculate about what the LPF might decide to do in hypothetical
>circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that companies would be added
>to the boycott merely for obtaining software patents.
>
>On the other hand, if some company were to undertake litigation to
>attempt to use their software patents to block the creation of free
>software, that would be something else entirely.
>

When did Apple do that? I don't think that Microsoft Windows qualifies
as 'free software.'

	- Vladimir

---------
Vladimir Vukicevic		-- vladimir@intrepid.com
	with Std_Disclaimer;
	use Std_Discalimer;