Scribit [EMAIL PROTECTED] dies 01/05/2006 hora 20:24: > GNU explicitely does *not* support the "freedom" to distribute > non-free software.
I may have misunderstood something: - does emacs forbids writing non-free software? - does gdb forbids debugging non-free software? - does ddd forbids debugging non-free software? - does gcc forbids compiling non-free software? - does make forbids building non-free software? - does cons forbids building non-free software? - does autoconf forbids building non-free software? - does bash forbids running non-free software? - does gnash forbids running non-free software? - does guile forbids running non-free software? - does dejagnu forbids testing non-free software? - does grub forbids booting non-free software? - does linux forbids running non-free software? - does hurd forbids running non-free software? Why the hell was the LGPL invented for, if not to support proprietary software developers wanting to use free software libraries? Have your read why the LALR(1) C parser output of Bison is not free software, but public domain instead? > The GCC case is a strategic compromise. Such compromises need to be > weighted very cautiously, and DRM mechanisms clearly fall a long way > outside any acceptable comprimise. Do you have documents backing your assertion about GCC being special about it's relationship with proprietary software? Do you have documents stating that ``GNU explicitely does *not* support the "freedom" to distribute non-free software''? Curiously, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
