Re: slink is gone, goals for potato?
Anderson MacKay wrote:
> Anyway, a bunch of people (Joel evidently included) have
> expressed the opinion that this is a "political issue" and not a "license
> issue" per se. Maybe there's some more info on it in the debian-legal
> archives, but I haven't checked.
>From what I understand (from Slashdot and elsewhere), the BSD code is
merely a red herring. There is no problem with it in libc. The problem
is that Libc can/should only be compiled with EGCS, due to exception
problems with GCC 2.8. RMS still feels EGCS is experimental only, and
libc must be compilable with GCC 2.8. Libc 2.1 is still accessable from
sourceware.cygnus.com, so if Debian choses, it can ignore RMS's wishs
and use Libc 2.1 even if it isn't from gnu.org.
David Starner - OSU student - email@example.com
If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts.
He actually likes people. -David Brin