Michael Tiedtke wrote:
> Today the first successful clean room build of Viper's System
> Interface (still heavily recognizable as Guile 1.8) compiled
> successfully and ran for the first time.
Excuse me, I step in as a foreigner. If you do an unofficial fork of a
GNU project: are you not requi
Marco Maggi writes:
> Michael Tiedtke wrote:
>
>> Today the first successful clean room build of Viper's System
>> Interface (still heavily recognizable as Guile 1.8) compiled
>> successfully and ran for the first time.
>
> Excuse me, I step in as a foreigner. If you do an unofficial fork of a
On 29/06/2015 09:55, David Kastrup wrote:
Marco Maggi writes:
Michael Tiedtke wrote:
Today the first successful clean room build of Viper's System
Interface (still heavily recognizable as Guile 1.8) compiled
successfully and ran for the first time.
Excuse me, I step in as a foreigner. If
Could this be moved off to a more appropriate, non-guile, and non-FSF list
please.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:59 Michael Tiedtke wrote:
> On 29/06/2015 09:55, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Marco Maggi writes:
> >
> >> Michael Tiedtke wrote:
> >>
> >>> Today the first successful clean room build of Viper
Michael Tiedtke writes:
> On 29/06/2015 09:55, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Marco Maggi writes:
>>
>>> Michael Tiedtke wrote:
>>>
Today the first successful clean room build of Viper's System
Interface (still heavily recognizable as Guile 1.8) compiled
successfully and ran for the firs
On 29/06/2015 16:54, David Kastrup wrote:
At any rate, it's the license. Abide by it or don't use the software
or risk legal action which can be costly.
You all know the concept of mark&sweep. The marking phase it isn't anymore.
Look at my violations of your broken concepts here:
https://cod
Michael Tiedtke writes:
> On 29/06/2015 16:54, David Kastrup wrote:
>> At any rate, it's the license. Abide by it or don't use the software
>> or risk legal action which can be costly.
>
> You all know the concept of mark&sweep. The marking phase it isn't anymore.
>
> Look at my violations of yo
