GMP license problem, anyone?
tg at swox.com
Sat May 31 01:26:08 CEST 2008
"Bill Hart" <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> writes:
You really do an insult to the outstanding contribution of Peter
Montgomery to the open source GMP-ECM project by insisting that
Microsoft are trying to destroy your project by paying for a fork,
I hope people make the conclusions of what my view on what I write,
not on your distorted claims.
A slight misrepresentation of an opponent's opinions is a common but
ugly rhetoric trick. But you go beyond that; you misrepresent my
opinions beyond all recognition.
I am not talking on wheather Peter Montgomery actually contributed
code to GMP-ECM or not. That is quite irrelevant.
You seem desperate to find ways of attacking me. If it is not some
secret deals with this or that company (horrible!), I charge steep
fees for merging my own patches (whatever that means, but it sounds
truly horrible), and I clearly censor the GMP lists, etc, etc, etc.
Bill Hart, you should be really ashamed of yourself. Nobody has the
right to spread the sort of lies about somebody that you are spreading
about me. You may dislike how I manage GMP, but that doesn't give you
any right to behave like you do.
On the various SAGE mailing lists, your accusations stand
unchallenged. People are not unlikely to believe you.
What is behind it all? Well, GMP is a very high-quality library, that
seem fairly uncontroversial. You and your buddies think my way of
managing it suck. But I stand firm in believing that this is a good
way of producing a quality library. And since people seem to agree
that GMP is really good, people that think I manage it poorly since
long, must simply conclude that poor management leads to quality code.
More information about the gmp-discuss