From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? 
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 07:42:00 -0000
Message-id: <17590.973179819@upchuck>
References: <20001102153715.911A334D82@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00146.html

  In message < 20001102153715.911A334D82@nile.gnat.com >you write:
  > <<Why should it surprise you that one of our customers wanted a completely
  > revamped ia32 backend which was geared towards supporting PII/PIII cores
  > in a sane manner and didn't want anyone to know about it before the work
  > was complete?
  > >>
  > 
  > As I say, we never ever tolerate NDA's that cover GPL'ed code in any
  > form, it is one of our strong corporate policies. It is one thing to
  > have a general agreement that development will not be released till
  > it is in reasonable shape (something that often makes sense anyway),
  > and quite another to have a formal NDA prohibiting distribution.
Well, it appears that Red Hat and ACT have different policies on this kind
of thing.
jeff
  > 
  >