On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:39:11PM +0100, devuan.kn@??? wrote:
> > I think everyone is in agreement that they fulfill the letter of the
> > license. The spirit may be lacking especially in regards to access.
> > Being an enormous, interdependent hairball simply puts the code out of
> > reach for all practical purposes as well as restricting use. Again,
> > that's spirit and not letter and the license does not address that.
> > There is however one large, long running project which does take code
> > legibility and quality and those kinds of things into account, in
> > addition to license. Maybe that's something for GPLv4, or maybe not.
>
> RMS admits that he wrote GCC as an interdependent hairball, simply to
> make it impossible to reuse parts of it in commercial applications. So
> I doubt that RMS will end up condemning "hairballs" in GPLv4 (or
> later). That change would require him to fight a project he started
> and to push it into a direction he is not at all comfortable with.
>

This sounds strange and new at the same time, since GCC was indeed
designed to be portable and ported to several architectures since from
the beginning. Do you have any quote by RMS or by any guy who has
contributed to gcc to support your statement? I don't think that GCC
is a hairball, to be honest. It's instead one of the few truly modular
compilers out there, and the proof is in the fact that it includes
front-ends for more than a dozen languages and back-ends for variuos
hundreds of different architectures....

RMS is a quite strange character to deal with, but saying that he was
purposedly obfuscating GCC seems quite risible, to be honest....

My2Cents

KatolaZ


--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]