Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!schmidt@glacier.ics.uci.edu
From: schmidt@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: g++ vs. cfront 2.0 in the Real World
Message-ID: <19308@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 89 16:06:46 GMT
References: <799@redsox.bsw.com>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: schmidt@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)

In article <799@redsox.bsw.com>, campbell@redsox (Larry Campbell) writes:
>There are two reasons we can't use g++.  One is the copyleft.  We can not
>and will not release source code to our products, yet if we use g++ to build
>our product, we'd be required to.

This is not entirely correct.... As with GCC, you can use the G++
*compiler* to compiler your code into binary, without having to
release the source code.  However, if you include the source or object
code from the libg++ libraries (stream.h, Strings,h, etc.) with your
product, then your work falls under the copyleft.

Check out the InterViews distribution from Stanford (which supplies
its own header files along with the G++ compiler) for one approach to
this situation.  InterViews applications compiled with their version
of G++ and their InterViews header files don't fall under the
copyleft.

Doug
--
Master Swordsman speak of humility;             | schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA)
Philosophers speak of truth;                    | office: (714) 856-4034
Saints and wisemen speak of the Tao of no doubt;
The moon, sun, and sea speaks for itself. -- Hiroshi Hamada