Re: Interesting discussion on gcc about objc

[Gregory Casamento]

Nicola,

I believe the fundamental mistake you're making here lays in the claim
that it's derived in the first place

As the person making the assertion that it is, you do, in fact, need
to discuss this with David.

Later, GC

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nicola Pero
<address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer.  And I'm not the copyright holder of the original
> work (libobjc) that libobjc2 is derived from.  The FSF holds the
> original copyright.  So there is nothing to discuss with me.
>
> You should call the FSF and ask.
>
> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Gregory Casamento" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, 13 September, 2010 21:23
> To: "Nicola Pero" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "David Chisnall" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Interesting discussion on gcc about objc
>
> Nicola,
>
> I believe what you're saying here about David's libobjc2 runtime is
> just as much FUD as what he said about GCC's ObjC.   He should discuss
> this with you further, but I don't think we have a problem here.
>
> GC
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Nicola Pero
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>> GNU ObjC has so few users that it seems hardly worth the effort to upgrade 
>>>> the
>>>> GNU ObjC front end to ObjC 2.0. And there are other issues:
>>>
>>> Translation: The GNU project doesn't care about GNUstep.
>>
>> The GNU project is a lot of people.  One person on the GCC mailing list 
>> wasn't
>> interested in Objective-C support.  Many others were and are.  I am. ;-)
>>
>>
>>> We already have an MIT-licensed runtime in svn that implements the ObjC 2 
>>> runtime
>>> features and works with GNUstep, so this isn't a problem.
>>
>> "libobjc2" is a derivative work of libobjc which is an FSF GNU GPL v2+ piece 
>> of work,
>> so I'm not sure why you say it's a MIT-licensed runtime.  If you wanted a 
>> MIT-licensed
>> runtime you should have started from scratch instead of scavenging the old 
>> FSF GNU
>> runtime.
>>
>> I'm actually quite confused as to why you worked on "libobjc2" now: I 
>> thought you were working
>> on libobjc because you meant to contribute changes back to the official FSF 
>> GNU runtime,
>> but you never have, and now claim your libobjc derivative is independent and 
>> no longer GNU GPL v2+,
>> which I'm confused about (I guess as I'm not a lawyer) but puts your runtime 
>> (in my view)
>> in a legal limbo to say the least.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer though.
>>
>> Anyway, I have nothing against "libobjc2" per se (except that you need to 
>> sort out your license)
>> as I think GNUstep should support as many free Objective-C compilers and 
>> runtimes as possible.
>> I think we all hope that there are, and will be, may free Objective-C 
>> compilers and runtimes
>> to choose from. :-)
>>
>> I personally do want to use the FSF GCC and runtime library, but that's 
>> because one of the very
>> few organizations I trust is the FSF.  I don't trust Apple. ;-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnustep-dev mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
> yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
> (240)274-9630 (Cell)
>
>
>



-- 
Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)