Sean Luke wrote:
> The Newton community is too small to be a threat to anyone, commercially
> or morally. Truth be told, the MAD folks could care less about us, much
> less whether or not we linked their code against a "non-open" compiler
> and library, as long as we're not taking their code and doing something
> unseemly with it.
That's not true -- I do care about the Newton community. I even happen to own
an original MessagePad. I once had a MP2100 too and briefly did some
development for it, but I was forced to give it up (reluctantly) upon leaving
a previous employer; I've never really been the same since.
For the record, as GPL licensor, I'm not too concerned about potential
conflicts between the GPL and the unique requirements for Newton development.
From my point of view, if I can recreate a Newton package distributed in
binary form using only the provided source code and an ordinary and accessible
compiler normally used for Newton development, and I am informed that the GPL
applies to said binary and source code, I think the GPL would be satisfied at
least in spirit.
As a Newton developer, my concern would be whether distributing binary
packages under the GPL could be in violation of the license agreement for any
component of the compiler. It's been a while since I've done any Newton
development, and I don't have any Newton compiler license agreements handy, so
I feel unqualified to address this question.
By the way, my compliments to Eckhart for porting MAD to the Newton, and also
for thoughtful consideration and reasoned debate of these issues. Now more
than ever I wish I could obtain a new MP2100 to play with.
Cheers,
-- Rob Leslie rob_at_mars.org-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 20:02:45 EST