bna-linuxiran
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [linuxiran] My growing interest in Apple


From: Arash Bijanzadeh
Subject: Re: [linuxiran] My growing interest in Apple
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:01:31 +0430
User-agent: KMail/1.5

On Monday 21 April 2003 13:43, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> On Monday 21 April 2003 11:08, Arash Bijanzadeh wrote:
> > On Monday 21 April 2003 11:30, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> > > But in order for FSF to accept changes and make Apple's improvments
> > > and patches back into the main trunk, FSF states that if you want
> > > your software to go in our trunk, you should give up your
> > > ownership, and make FSF the copyright holder. Something that many
> > > people don't like, and many big companies like apple can't accept.
> >
> > I really can't understand what RMS intend of this?!
>
> The copyright holder of all GNU software is FSF.
> As Arash Z explained, this does have it's pros and cons.
>
> > > So the situtation that we now have in hand is that Apple's gcc is
> > > much better than GNU gcc, and though Apple's gcc is gpl, the
> > > improvments don't find their way back into gnu gcc.
> >
> > where can we get this Apple's gcc?
>
> It only runs on Mac OS X. Ofcourse as I said, source is available, but
> one should port it to Linux, to be able to run it on Linux. Something
> which hasn't been done yet.
Saying gcc means that it is the same of GNU patched by Apple, so it should 
compile on Linux too, isn't it?!
>
> Instead of porting yet another compiler, the better alternative is just
> to get the improvments from it, and add them to gnu gcc. Exactly like
> what the KDE guys are doing with Apple's html engine. They are not
> porting the whole engine to Linux, they are just adding Apple's patches
> into khtml.
>
> But as I said, FSF doesn't accept contributions if you do not give up
> your copyright.
>
> Thers is also another interesting story. Yesterday, it was announced
> that the GNU Free Documentation License, is not in accordance with
> Debian's free software policy. In other words, according to Debian's
> rules, GNU FDL is not free (as in freedom). So they are now removing
> all licenses with FDL from Debian. This include's all GNU's documents
> and manuals.
>
> Cheers




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]