http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2005-11/msg00211.html
From: Mike Dewar Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] letting my mud settle Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:40:09 +0000 User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Bill Page wrote: > I am not aware of any of Tim's past sins -- only his present > ones. ;) Building Axiom from sources only, which was apparently > a requirement imposed by restrictive licensing conditions which > apparently prevented any of the previously commercial binary > versions of Axiom to be distributed along with the Axiom source > code, was certainly a challenge because of the way that Axiom > had been designed to be "bootstrapped" from an existing running > copy. But this is no different than the situation with most > compilers and in particular GNU C (gcc). Just for the record this is not true. Arthur Norman offered to provide an open-source version of CCL to the project which would have allowed you to build and distribute a Unix version of Axiom from the original NAG sources without any modifications. I provided copies of the Axiom product to several people on the list so you would have had no problem bootstrapping the first open-source versions from the NAG code. Eliminating the need for a running Axiom was a good thing to do, but if anything forced you to do it it was probably the decision to develop on GCL rather than CCL. Cheers, Mike. http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2005-11/msg00220.html From: Mike Dewar Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] letting my mud settle Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:42:31 +0000 User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:50:51AM -0500, Bill Page wrote: > Do you mean that this original "Axiom product" binary - as distinct > from the commercial binary version - could have been distributed as > part of the original open source distribution? If that is true, it > makes me sad that Tim went to all the trouble to embed bootstrap lisp > code into the build process. No, I mean that you could have bootstrapped the first open source binary from the commercial system, and then distributed that first open source-derived binary. Cheers, Mike. ------------------- On 8/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill writes: > > Well, actually I think that was just a misunderstanding on Tim's part. > > Other emails on this list from Mike Dewar of NAG have made it clear > > that NAG would have had no objections to releasing an open source > > version of Axiom that required a running Axiom to compile. > > Please reference those emails. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
