From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:09:43 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 157 ************************************************** Friday 01 August 2003 Number 157 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Mozilla_build script : Jeff Robinson 2 Re: Mozilla_build script : T.Sikora" 3 Re: Mozilla_build script : Alex Newman" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:10:15 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script T.Sikora wrote: > Alex Newman wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:27:05 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> >>> Dave and Natalie wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:16:36 +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: >>> >>> I am assuming they will have to provide their source free as per GPL >>> and LGPL license. Which should benefit us greatly >> >> >> >> Either that, or they will have to withdraw it. Are there any >> precedents? >> > Corel tried it but had to evently release it after everyone went after > them. > If nothing else, it can be an incredible PR mistake on the company's part. That's be shown! Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:54:25 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script Alex Newman wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:27:05 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>Dave and Natalie wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:16:36 +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>This should really wait until GCC 3.22 and the new libc are >>>>>finalized. Right now they are in a state of flux (Alpha) and the EMX >>>>>build is quite hard. I've been trying on and off for over a year >>>>>without much success. >>>>>Dave >>>>>ps It looks like the new libc will be LGPL and since they are >>>>>distributing it the source shouldn't be far behind >>>> >>>>Who are "they", exactly? Innotek? >>> >>> >>>Sorry, yes Innotek, see http://www.innotek.de/products/gccos2/gccos2general_e.html >>>Dave >>> >>> >> >>I am assuming they will have to provide their source free as per GPL and >>LGPL license. Which should benefit us greatly > > > Either that, or they will have to withdraw it. Are there any > precedents? > Corel tried it but had to evently release it after everyone went after them. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:20:00 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: Mozilla_build script On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:27:05 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > Dave and Natalie wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:16:36 +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: > > > > > >>>This should really wait until GCC 3.22 and the new libc are > >>>finalized. Right now they are in a state of flux (Alpha) and the EMX > >>>build is quite hard. I've been trying on and off for over a year > >>>without much success. > >>>Dave > >>>ps It looks like the new libc will be LGPL and since they are > >>>distributing it the source shouldn't be far behind > >> > >>Who are "they", exactly? Innotek? > > > > > > Sorry, yes Innotek, see http://www.innotek.de/products/gccos2/gccos2general_e.html > > Dave > > > > > I am assuming they will have to provide their source free as per GPL and > LGPL license. Which should benefit us greatly Either that, or they will have to withdraw it. Are there any precedents? Alex.