Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1383 gnu.misc.discuss:748
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <1598@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Jan 90 17:00:42 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu> <SJA.90Jan17142417@sirius.hut.fi>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 12

In article <SJA.90Jan17142417@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
>I started writing a FORTRAN (blecch) front-end for gcc before I read
>the license.  I thought I could make my own work public domain.

>I rm'd the thing when I found out that someone else was
>going to dictate what I could do with my work.

There are several cases to consider.  If you write a front end to
a public domain compiler, you win.  Your new compiler can be PD.
But I don't compare gcc only against pd compilers, I also compare
it to various proprietary compilers.  I happen to think I get a
better deal from FSF.  You don't have to agree.