Path: utzoo!yunexus!oz
From: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ 2.0 pricing (AT&T loses.)
Message-ID: <2510@yunexus.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jul 89 01:59:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: yunexus.2510
References: <1989Jun30.074346.15350@lth.se> <264@pink.ACA.MCC.COM>
Reply-To: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 33

In article <264@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> Ron Guilmette writes:
>There are a lot of areas where I disagree strongly with
>Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, but one thing
>we can agree on is that these kinds of silly licensing restrictions
>result in nothing other than a big waste of resources.

True enough. In any case, I suspect, except for the "rich companies"
Cfront is no longer reachable, and g++ is possibly the best replacement.
Our time is much better spent improving on g++ than to try to get AT&T to
wake up. I am surprised that the educational institutions are spared.
[Anybody know if educational license for cfront 2.0 require a 3B2 box or
not ??  If I remember correctly, that was the condition for the "collegiate
edition writer's workbench".]

The best way to combat corporate arrogance is to ignore the corporation.

[read: use g++] One other way to combat this would be to try to
reverse-engineer the changes to cfront, using the 2.0 reference manual.
[I believe there are "legal" methods of reverse-engineering] There
are many talented compiler-types around, and I hope they are frustrated
enough to do it.

[hmpphh... what is this slime dripping from the ceiling ?? :-)]

oz

ps: In case you wonder, these are *my* opinions, and may not be attributed
to my institution or my department.
-- 
They are like the Zen students who,	   Usenet:    oz@nexus.yorku.ca
when the master points at the moon,        ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
continue to stare at his finger....        Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
			P. da Silva        Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976