Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!ames!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Borland and other proprietary bloodsuckers (Was: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license.) Message-ID: <5580@ficc.uu.net> Date: 7 Aug 89 22:36:49 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <68903@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 In article <68903@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: > But I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that your comment is irrelevant to the subject under discussion: whether or not the FSF licensing terms are better or worse than the terms of commercial software packages. Mike Meyer seems convinced that the norm is to require royalties on compiled programs. I just listed a bunch of companies... the majority of compiler companies for the IBM-PC... that don't. Whether the products are good or not is not relevant. Plenty of people find them adequate. Personally, I don't care for Borland's products either... but they do a better job than GNU CC on an IBM-PC, XT, or AT. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"