[Gcl-devel] RE: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter

[Mike Thomas]

Hi Tim.

| > To clarify, I underatand that (IBM or NAG?) released the code
| with licencing
| > conditions on it which cannot be changed.
|
| > >From a practical point of view, I would hate to look a gift
| horse (free BSD
| > Axiom)in the mouth when the gift came from such an appalling
| example (IBM,
| > at the very least from the Thomas J Watson years apparently) of the
| > subjugation of moral responsibility to commercial and 20th century right
| > wing political imperatives.
|
| I have to react to this screed with anger. You grossly paint IBM and,
| by proximity, NAG with some sort of political mud. Corporations are made
| up of people, of which I was one, and I am incensed that you would sling
| such unfounded assertions at people I hold in the highest regard and
| deepest respect. The people at NAG and IBM Research are among the best
| I've ever worked with. If you want to argue politics please find another
| forum.

Sorry about that; I did not make my point very well.  Please see my separate
reply to Mike Dewar.

I assumed that neither you nor anyone else from recent IBM history would be
offended by a reference to the Thomas J Watson years as presumably none of
you would have participated either directly or indirectly in the events
mentioned in the reference I passed on to Mike.

I saw the release of the Axiom code as (in a certain sense) a minor Karmic
event not to be messed with by the implications of day to day considerations
such as GPL licencing.  Rather than arguing politics I was trying (not very
well) to put that slant on it.  I would also like Axiom to remain licenced
as it currently is - BSD.

Cheers

Mike Thomas.