John and others seem to be making the argument that unless something is technologically similar to GCC (in the way it is distributed, developed, and coded) it can't be --- picking a term --- open source. For example, Albert says that code has to be manageable by traditional SCM tools, patch tools, diff tools, editing tools, etc to be called source code. Different tools need not apply.
It seems to me to be a little narrow to define software freedom in terms of specific (traditional) development tools; in the same way that it seems narrow to define a vehicle as something powered by an animal that eats oats. Isn't it enough for free software to be software that is free (both as in beer and speech)? Or does it also have to be editable by Emacs? -- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott, MA, USA _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
