From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1316 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 05:19:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1309 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 05:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spf13.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.67) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 05:19:11 -0000 Received: from spf0.us4.outblaze.com (spf0.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.68]) by spf13.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 234521801027 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:19:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 7027 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 05:19:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.55) by mailin.us4.outblaze.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 05:19:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 40772 invoked by uid 1001); 20 Jan 2004 05:19:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20040120051910.40771.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [24.0.67.202] by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com with http for shalesller@writeme.com; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:19:10 -0800 From: "D. Starner" To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:19:00 -0000 Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal X-Originating-Ip: 24.0.67.202 X-Originating-Server: ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01448.txt.bz2 > But that is not the FreeDOM that the FSF is taking about. If you want to quote verse, try: Software developers typically consider these questions on the assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers' profits. The political power of business has led to the government adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation associated with its development. I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general. What maximizes the prosperity and freedom of the public in general: a compiler (and hence all the Free operating systems that depend on it) requiring continous upgrades if they want to be able to use the source (the point of Free software), or a compiler and Free operating system that can be compiled and used on their current computer? Is RMS's public only that subset of the public that can afford to spend $400 on a computer every year? In any case, my message wasn't about the philosophy of Free software. It was about the pragmatic needs of many of the users of Free software, and in my case the pragmatic needs of a Debian developer. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm