Re: What are tainted developers allowed to work on?

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 23:43 +0100, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Monday 10 January 2005 17:11, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >
> > > In the meantime I did manage to elicit this statement from a Sun
> > > engineer, while talking about something other than JCK:
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > That sounds like an attempt at 'Carrot And Stick'. :)
> >
> > I doubt that Sun running amok in SCO style would make a lot of sense.
> 
> Indeed it wouldn't. They made similar noises at Acunia when they heard that 
> Wonka was going to be open-sourced (not before), and we just ignored them. 
> (for the Dutch speakers, we "did as if our nose were bleeding").

I talked to FSF licensing about this kind of FUD. They advised not to
react to it since it is very unspecific. The best reaction we could give
is that we know of no reason that we can't write and distribute Free
Software implementations of the various core class libraries.  If Sun
has actual legal concerns, they're welcome to bring them to the our
attention. But please direct such queries to address@hidden 

Lets keep this mailinglist for technical issues.

> [...] the rest of us might [...]
> > > think you were working on a runtime for Ada or Occam or something.
> >
> > I'll add those to my list of code to merge into Kaffe, thanks :)
> 
> Then all we need is an Ada- or Occam-to -j*av*-bytecode compiler. :)

Sorry, no Occam yet. (Was that ever used for anything except
transputers?) But GCC (which stands for the GNU Compiler Collection, and
not just for GNU C Compiler!) does indeed have a Ada compiler. The byte
code backend is currently not officially part of GCC though.
There was a request recently to add it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-07/msg00274.html

Cheers,

Mark

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part