🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KHERA.92Aug19091232@thneed.cs.duke.edu> khera@cs.duke.edu (Vivek Khera) writes:
>I'd be happy with an Object class, so I can at least start writing my
>own stuff using gcc.  Currently, gcc doesn't even have the base class
>that is needed for dispatching messages.  I think that should be the
>first effort.  Maybe we can convince NeXT it would be in their best
>interest to release their base class so that Obj-C will become more
>popular and be available on many platforms immediately.
>
>Of course, I think that the base Object class should be totally
>unencumbered by the GPL, like the rest of the gcc runtime support
>library.  That way, if you write your own Object library, the
>resulting binary image will not fall under the GPL unless you want it
>that way.  Of course, the object library should be under the same
>terms as libg++ or GNU libc.

I agree that the Objective-C runtime (specifically the Object class) is
the most urgently needed thing so that we can port at least _some_ of our
code to other platforms. It would be nice to make a start on the appkit
(eg List, Storage, Speaker/Listener).

As for a binary object library coming under GNU licence conditions, this
is a _bad_ idea because it shuts out commercial developers and thus ultimately
hurts the consumer. I mean suppose someone went and developed AREXX for the
NeXT and then slapped a GNU licence on it - it would be useless because no
commercial apps would be able to use it.

Dave Griffiths