From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-73725-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5795 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 14:52:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5734 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 14:52:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 14:52:10 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h49EpJYq029536;
	Fri, 9 May 2003 16:51:19 +0200
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h49EpIXk029535;
	Fri, 9 May 2003 16:51:18 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: What is the relationship between GCC and Cygnus / Red Hat?
References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305091630020.79923@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305091630020.79923@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:52:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m37k90dvh5.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00897.txt.bz2

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

| I believe by having the following entry in our FAQ, we actually reach the
| opposite of what it was originally ment to -- namely calm fears of Red Hat
| controlling GCC -- and I believe the situation has sufficiently changed
| since then, so I would like to remove it.
| 
| However, this is my personal opionion, so I'd like to hear what others
| think about it, especially folks from Red Hat and competing companies!

I do not have any strong opinion on the issue, however I would like to
point out that removing that entry from the FAQ may be interpreted as
removing an entry that is no longer true, i.e. there would be a take
over from Red Hat -- I know that is not true, but the mere act of
removing it may be interpreted that way.  

Is there a way (other than removal) to clarify the situation?

-- Gaby