Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Ronald Cole" <ronald@forte-intl.com> wrote in message
news:m37ks1crl3.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com...
> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> > 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 ?
>
> Read it for yourself:
>
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+wavefront+group:comp.lang.ada+author:dew
ar%40merv.cs.nyu.edu&hl=en&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1997&as_ma
xd=5&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1997&rnum=1&selm=dewar.871738278%40merv&filter=0>
>
> Specifically, Mr. Dewar said:
>
> "If people started distributing wavefront versions freely, then w [sic]
> would probably reluctantly decide to stop making them available, since
> it would be clear that their distribution was harmful. That would be
> too bad for the cases where they really solve a problem."
>
> Since wavefronts were/are only sent to customers of ACT, it's not too
> hard to figure out that this was a veiled threat to them about
> exercising their right under the GPL to send me copies.

IMHO the post you cite doesn't support your assertion; it is interesting
that you have removed the rest of it.  For example, Dewar's very next
paragraph says:

"But as I said, this is a very small part of our support activity anyway
(sending out wavefront releases). So if we did decide to curtail the
distribution of wavefront release because of problems with uncontrolled
releases, then this would be nothing like "refusing to do business
with people" or anything like that. it would just be a matter of balancing
the needs of customers in certain situations with other needs, something
we have to do all the time."

Isn't this axe about ground down to nothing by now?


--
---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com          Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com               Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                                 Software Fault Tolerance