guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reinterpreting the compiler source code


From: Ian Grant
Subject: Re: Reinterpreting the compiler source code
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:23:41 -0400

Well, I don't know Prolog either, which is why I typed in that code. I don't know about available funding either, I have been trying for over two years now to get people interested in this, and I ran out of financial resources a while ago. I have been living by extorting money from my friends and family. It's not an ideal lifestyle, but I don't know what else I can do.

There was some money in the Linux Foundation after that Bleeding Heart fiasco, and I thought perhaps we could go to them and say: "This is just treating  the symptoms, not curing the disease. We would do better to cure the disease, so why don't you give us just 10% of what you would have spent, and see if we can't do 90% of the work." But if you're only interested in treating the symptoms too, then you are competing directly with the OpenSSL people, and I'm not sure how much better you will fare.

I'm really tired now, and I will try and reply more constructively tomorrow.

Ian





On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I don't know prolog, and even if I did, reading so much code would
take a lot of time.  I don't see a point, because all that example can
prove is that some subtle of sabotage is _possible_.  I'd rather just
agree that it is possible.  (I already did.)

I think our community's distributed build practices would make it
difficult for such a sabotage to hit the whole community.  Many GCC
developers and redistributors have been bootstrapping for decades
using their old versions.

However, this suggests to me a way of investigating whether such
sabotage is present in our tools.  It would be much less work than
replacing the system with new "simple" software, but it would be
a substantial job.  I think it would need funding.  I don't know
how to get such funding, but maybe someone else does.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]