On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ruben Safir <ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:13:18PM +0200, Václav Haisman wrote: >> On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote: >> > On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> >> viable compiler >> > >> > It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3. >> >> In that case, I am waiting for you to present and get through patches >> that remove aCC, cl.exe, FCC, KCC, RCC, xlC_r, and xlC as well as clang >> from the code. >> > > That is irrelevant to the issue being address. Just because something stupid > was done in the past doesn't mean that it should be stupidly be done in the > present. That sword cuts both ways.... The FSF has worthy goals, like ensuring user freedoms. There's a reason the principals don't dominate the landscape. It seems to indicate a problem with the approach or execution. What purpose does it serve to alienate a majority of the users from whom you need support to achieve your goals? That seems like it will take a bad situation (lack of overwhelming support for FSF ideals) and make it worse (aggravate more developers and users, which nets you less support). Jeff _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
