Re: "toll-free bridging"

[strobe anarkhos]

At 7:58 PM +0100 3/16/01, Stefan Boehringer wrote:
>Hello Strobe,
>
>I'm a bit in a similar boat like you, living in a Objective-C hostile 
>environment (of course not by proper reasoning, but by technical ignorance). 
>As painful as it is, I have fallen back to plain C for the most part (and a 
>bit of C++). BTW, I've come back to plain C after nearly a decade now, but 
>having coded Objective-C (and esp. the OPENSTEP API) improves your coding 
>skills - I can tell you.
>GNUstep can be ported nearly everywhere (and is ported already). So I would 
>code the other way round: wrap GNUstep to plain C (unless there is a community 
>maintaining CF for the required platforms). New code goes to plain C and is 
>wrapped to Objective-C for private use.

Uuuh, that's what Apple did when they made CF, it's a C interface for 
Foundation. CF objects *are* Foundation objects.

Why duplicate efforts just so it tickles RMS's ego? Why not just support the 
use of CF, it's not like I'm taking away your beloved GNUStep Foundation. I 
mean so what if CF is APSL, there is no license conflict. You can choose to use 
CF and use whatever licence you want, or choose not to use CF. What a tragedy 
if non-GNU code can be used with GNU code optionally, somebody stop this mad 
man!

I love Objective-C and Foundation but as you implied the world doesn't revolve 
around my language preferences. Once you reduce basic interfaces down to C 
(without crippling it) everybody can join the party. 

>Of course I would very much like to see CF ported everywhere and maintained, 
>but this is a task completely complementary to GNUstep - no conflicts. For 
>myself I consider this a duplication of efforts, as of today.

What would be duplication is what you suggested in the previous paragraph.

>
>Now going through flames :-)....
>I havn't read much software licences. Didn't ASPL used to permit Apple to 
>revoke the licence? Maybe this is one of the flaws they have removed.

Apple just had a clause to prevent software leaking into Darwin which would get 
them into legal hot water. Personally I think their first license was a bit 
paranoid, the new one I have no problems with.

>We all agree that there is no such thing like a flawless licence, don't we? 
>This group has a common goal: GNUstep - not LGPL or any ideology. The main 
>coders (>80% of code) are (L)GPL advocates, so in my opinion it's o.k. we live 
>with LGPL. Just a matter of take it or leave it.

There is no license conflict. The conflict others have expressed is APSL isn't 
RMS's cup-o-tea. 

>On the other hand I want to stress that this group is not hostile to licences 
>other than LGPL - certainly not. Any reasonable (whatever this means :-) 
>licence (for me ASPL is) is acceptable for GNUstep related projects - like 
>your proposal of a CF port. However there seems to be no way to change the 
>GNUstep licence in the foreseeable future. But I can't see any pressing need 
>for that.

I don't want to change the GNUStep license! (well yes I do but that's not 
relevant)

The license is not an issue and never was. Read Frederic Stark's first email.