Re: Interesting discussion on gcc about objc

[Nicola Pero]

> If you're asking me I would say it's very unfair to make an assertion
> regarding someones work, then back out of/refuse to participate in the
> discussion which results.

I have nothing more to contribute than what is in the following comments --

>> The first subversion logs for libobjc2 states:
>>
>> "Added new runtime library, based on GCC 4.4 libobjc, libobjc_tr and 
>> Objective2.framework."
>>
>> You may also want to look at that revision, r28632, which shows that 
>> libobjc2 was initially
>> the libobjc runtime with a few minor tweaks.

What else do you want me to say or discuss ?

I like David and his code, I just don't understand the license.  All my doubts 
are summarized
in the comments above.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't contribute any legal 
insight.

I'm sure David will state his position.  He'll probably say that he's replaced 
most libobjc code,
so the current code is mostly his and he can pick the license he wants.  I have 
no idea of the
legal validity of that assertion.  You should ask a lawyer.  I'm not a lawyer 
so I'm not sure
why you want me in this discussion.  The FSF have lawyers, and GNUstep is an 
FSF project, 
so you could ask them.

I'm not making any "accusations" as you called them.  I'm not trying to 
diminuish the value 
of anyone's work.

Thanks