Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!scs
From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Request For Standard Repostings
Keywords: rms gcc g++ bison others
Message-ID: <2478@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 31 Jul 89 13:25:31 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lines: 30


Now that we have a newsgroup where we can discuss this stuff without
polluting the rest of the gnu space, I'd like to see some 'standard
postings' put up here.

Several issues come up over and over again in the GNU discussions.
RMS has answered many of these, but turnover in the readership means
the new people (who most need to know) don't get the data straight
from the horses mouth.  This causes more confusion as various folks
offer their own opinions, an nauseum.

It would be very helpful to have regular postings here of many of the
single-issue clarifications RMS has sent out.  Some specific ones I
can think of (oh god, please let me summarize these right! :-):

A.  Bison output is not copyleft, but the bison static code is.

B.  Gcc output is not copyleft, nor are linked excecutables.  Although
    ctr0.o and libgnu.a are copyleft, users are explicitly permitted to
    use them in proprietary programs.

C.  G++ output is not copyleft.  Ctr0+.o, crt1+.o, and the g++ library
    are all under copyleft, and may not be linked into proprietary programs.

There are almost certianly others.  These regular postings would go a
long way to improve the S/N ratio.
-- 
Steve Simmons		          scs@vax3.iti.org
Industrial Technology Institute     Ann Arbor, MI.
"Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai