Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0

[Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>]

Wes Groleau <wgroleau@usa.com> writes:
> He said if something bad happens they might
> reluctantly decide to prevent it.  You call
> that a threat?

No, he said that if wavefronts started getting around (i.e., ACT
customers were giving them out despite Mr. Dewar explicitly asking
them not to) then he would probably, but reluctantly, stop giving
out wavefronts (to ACT customers, since ACT doesn't give them out
to anyone else).

> That is no more a threat than for me to consider
> putting you in my killfile if your posts become
> a waste of my time.

If you don't think it's a threat, then how about volunteering to
provide me with wavefront sources?  I'm interested in comparing them
against what's currently in the gcc cvs tree.

> The only "threat" in that post is the hypothetical
> threat that "some lawyer" is NOT making in the
> next-to-last paragraph.

Well, it certainly scared an ACT customer who I had lined up to
provide me with wavefront source (because they also thought that open
development of GNAT was a good thing).

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>      Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084  4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B