Jeff wrote:

>Russ wrote
>> I had always taken it that Open Source meant that if your
>> shop can't use the standard, then roll your own.

That is a pretty fair analysis. Let's put it this way ...
I would never have been able to port gcc to the 3000 without
this model. Please note that my port has not yet been
incorporated back into the official sources, so in essence,
this is a "roll your own" port which Allegro and I support.
If you want it, you get it from us, not the official gcc
site.

>I see open source MPE as potentially the ultimate security
>blanket or insurance policy for the end customer and for the
>ISVs that depend on MPE.  By that I mean, if you have write
>access to the source then you have at least some chance of
>fixing bugs, adding features, etc.  You have the potential of
>doing these things, but not a guarantee.

This is also a fair statement. When I was first in the software
business ages ago, it was standard operating procedure that when
we sold a license for our software, we also would put the source
code into source code escrow. If we went out of business, the
users of the software would have a right to take the source and
use it for their own support.

I think we could be talking the same thing here ... some people
want to have access to the MPE source such that they can
continue to operate their businesses on it and with it.

>Fragmented MPE open source would not be good.

Only if you want to keep a consistent distribution going for others
to use. But, even so, I tend to agree with Jeff's statement.

Regards,


M.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *