From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,13b7917466f2d19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-10 02:59:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0
Date: 10 Oct 2001 04:59:05 -0500
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <TcK5AtkXbXj1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <9a575af3.0110020747.2304ce86@posting.google.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110022002.7ccde025@posting.google.com>
 <m3vghvau6m.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110060639.31567261@posting.google.com>
 <m3669r79m7.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
 <iI4w7.8665$9h6.2944314573@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <9pr6e8$aai1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <%biw7.8780$H81.3054034106@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <m3g08sil5p.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110092211.a69a5f@posting.google.com>
 <m3669o0y2u.fsf@yakisoba.forte-inOrganization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1002707948 23233 192.135.80.34 (10 Oct 2001
 09:59:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:59:08 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14132
Date: 2001-10-10T04:59:05-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <m3669o0y2u.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> writes:
> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
>> This is a fabrication. No such "threat" was made at any
>> time to any of our customers. We are not in the business
>> of threatening customers. This is simply a fantasy that
>> Mr. Cole has constructed (for what reasons I do not know).
> 
> I still have our email discussion between you, me and rms from June
> 1997 where you clearly state that you considered having wavefront
> sources out in the public to be so dangerious that you would seriously
> consider not giving wavefront releases to customers who were
> exercising their GPL rights and giving them to me.  You specifically
> used the example of Stallman getting steamed that a Linux distribution
> released an internal version of gcc that he didn't intend for public
> consumption to support your position.

So who was the customer who was "threatened" ?  RMS ?