Aaron Ardiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <wanting_to_ban_Michael_from_the_list>
Just as a warning, such an action would immediately result in me filing a
lawsuit against whoever takes it, as that would be an outright violation of my
rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
> in my eyes, i dont think the word 'official' as you use it Michael
> really counts here. CodeWarrior is the official compiler for the
> Palm Computing Platform. there is nothing you can do about this.
>
> as for gcc? the 'official' version that Palm Computing Inc. supports
> if prc-tools 2.0. this is the version that they have hired someone
> to maintain for the Palm Development Community. your version? well,
> in their eyes is just another 'stream' that was continued from the
> original prc-tools series (which in its own right, may be 'official')
>
> Palm Computing provides support for CW and prc-tools 2.0 - i dont see
> prc-tools 0.6.0 mentioned anywhere on their website, and hence since
> they dont provide support for it.. it is not 'official' from their
> point of view.
I don't care what is official in terms of Palm's support. I do care about what
is official in terms of having rights to carry the name chosen by the original
authors for the original cause.
If Palm desires to create a divergent version of prc-tools and support it, they
have the right to do so, but they have no right to misrepresent it as the
original software, which is not dead and which still has people fighting for
its original cause. Palm must give its supported software its own name and
clearly state that it is derived from prc-tools, with a pointer to the original
prc-tools, which would mean a pointer to my site as I'm the current maintainer,
and a note that Palm's divergent version branches off from an old version of
prc-tools (0.5.0), rather than the current (0.6.0).
> exactly what is a Public Service Agent?
The IFCTF/IESTF WWW server hasn't been set up yet. When it is, it will all be
explained there.
> is prc-tools 2.0 NOT free?
Different people and groups have different definitions of the term "free", so
the question is meaningless as stated. That version does not, however, serve
the mission and purpose of the original prc-tools, and therefore, especially
given the existence of another version that does, has no right to the name prc-
tools.
> i am very tempted to add a clause
> to the PilRC development that will NOT allow you to use PilRC under
> prc-tools 0.6.0
Well, I guess you are legally able to, as the original author has unfortunately
failed to GPL PilRC, which would prohibit you from doing this. This will serve
as yet another testimony to RMS, i.e. yet another demonstration of the need to
GPL free software in order to keep it free, as RMS had first learned the hard
way. But if you do that, I will simply use the last version released under a
free license. Or maybe move the development host into a third-world country
that doesn't honor intellectual property laws, which would be justified given
that you would be using them for very questionable motives.
--
Michael Sokolov Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service Agent International Free Computing Task Force
International Engineering and Science Task Force
615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY STE #4
DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA
Phone: +1-214-824-7693 (Harhan Eng Lab office)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ARPA TCP/SMTP) (UUCP coming soon)
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palm.com/devzone/mailinglists.html
