Re: VC6 and BCB5.5 patches

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jose Da Silva" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gary Setter" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches


> On Thursday 24 February 2005 06:17 am, Gary Setter wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Fact is there are lots of ordinary people who
> >>> have to do projects based on decisions others make for
them,
> >>> and if it comes down that .NET support is required, there
is
> >>> nothing they can do.
> >>
> >> Yes, there is little point in working on a project that is
> >> moving in the wrong direction. If everyone is using .NET,
> >> and you can't make it work, then you are moving away from
> >> the majority and nobody is going to be able to use
> >> what you have. However, if you choose your terms/commands
> >> carefully, you could get things to work without having to
resort
> >> to specific special commands. For example, gcc has moved up
to 3.x,
> >> yet Kevin is trying to maintain 2.95 compatibility for as
long as
> >> possible to keep it compatible across the biggest range
possible.
> >
> > You do recognize that some people would consider feeding
> > themselves and their family reason enough to comply with a
> > demand for .NET support?
>
> You appear to come short on saying it out loud, but since you
bring
> it up again, I am going to guess that someone is willing to pay
you
> to put in .NET support.
> Congratulations.
Wrong, I just recieved an e-mail from a user. There is no money
in this for me. I'm interested because I would learn something.

> > You don't have to support anything you don't want to support.
> > I'm just saying not everyone has that luxury.
>
> That was very short-sighted.
> Not only to me, but highly likely to many people as well.
> Not only are you assuming nobody else have themselves or
families
> to feed or worry about, but you are assuming we all have
abundant
> amounts of luxury and time too.
> Thank you.
> Thank you very much.
non sequitur. Truely, I don't know how you support yourself. When
I say "you don't have to" I mean you have the right to reject OLE
componant support (which is really what I'm talking about). I
claim the freedom to bring up the question. I ask that you
receive the question of OLE componant support in the spirit it
was asked.

> >>> If .NET is not compatible with the LGNU, then I can
> >>> understand that providing .NET support would be like
> >>> aiding and abetting a violation of the LGNU license.
Bummer.
>
> It is a Bummer, but the people who have contributed under GNU
> or LGNU contributed because they knew that their code would
> continue to be GNU or LGNU.
> Since GNU and Linux is getting the attention of Microsoft, you
will
> most likely want to read the .NET license as well because it
may
> have similar complaints which may not allow you to pull .NET
> commands or terms into GNU.
> Frankly, I don't think things would go as far as they have if
say this
> was a BSD license or another type of license.  In other words,
you
> probably would not be asking these questions about adding .NET
> support because Aspell probably wouldn't be as advanced as it
is
> now thanks to the GNU/LGNU licenses.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm not sure I follow what you're proposing. Can you explain?
>
> Read the 2nd-half of the 2nd paragraph at the top of this
message.