gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC


Previous by date: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] gpsim: moving from CVS to Subversion, Scott Dattalo
Next by date: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Marco Pantaleoni
Next in thread: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Alex Holden

Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
From: "Colm O' Flaherty" ####@####.####
Date: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100
Message-Id: <BAY112-F60125E3854BCA037FF5CCB4CD0@phx.gbl>

I don't see why we shouldn't ask the FSF directly.  I, for one, would like a 
"from the horses mouth" statement, (from the FSF) of what Microchips rights 
and obligations are in this particular case.

If I was wrong, then I'd like to know in what respect I was wrong.  If a 
couple of intelligent people are questioning the meaning of the GPL in a 
particular case such as this, then I think it warrants a reasonable 
clarification of the situation from the FSF itself.  If the FSF doesn't get 
a chance to clarify things, I think it will be to its loss.

Personal opinions on this will always differ.. thats fair enough.  I have no 
issue accepting someone elses opinion on this if they can logically reason 
it out to me, and can reasonably explain away my concerns or questions.  
Right now, I personally don't feel that has happened here (for me, at 
least).

Colm



Previous by date: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] gpsim: moving from CVS to Subversion, Scott Dattalo
Next by date: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Marco Pantaleoni
Next in thread: 11 Apr 2006 13:55:02 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Alex Holden


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.