Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cwjcc!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Message-ID: <1990Mar13.001851.10716@NCoast.ORG> Date: 13 Mar 90 00:18:51 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> < Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: comp.sources.d Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH Lines: 54 As quoted from <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> by coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge): +--------------- | frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: | >The GNU C compiler has only the restriction that the inclusion of the runtime | >library in your program then subjects your program to the GNU license. | >This library consists of a handfull of machine dependant math routines, | >and can be rewritten in a day. So, in effect, the GNU C compiler has | >no real restrictions on its use. | | The 'gnulib' library, which comes with GCC, is _explicitly_ not covered | by the copyleft restrictions --- or so the FSF says every few months when | this comes up on the gnu.* newsgroups. +--------------- I'm pleased to hear this; if it's true, I'll remove the nastygram from the shell script wrapper to gcc on telotech. Said nastygram saying approximately "don't compile Unify 2000 stuff with this on pain of immediate dismemberment by opposing factions at the FSF and Unify Corp. trying to assert copyright on each other". If the FSF had a Unify 2000 clone, this might be different. (Let it be noted that I have some plans to look at the feasibility of such a clone, but on my schedule it won't be available until about 2050.) +--------------- | libg++ _is_ explicitly under the copyleft, and anything linked with it | must (if released) be covered by the copyleft. In fact, the FSF claims | even stronger protection for libg++ (and other Gnu code): any package | designed to link with libg++ or the source to a Gnu tool _must_ be | covered by the copyleft. Furthermore, any libg++-compatible library | must also be covered by the copyleft. This was all posted to gnu.g++ +--------------- ack. So much for porting g++. (Well, maybe. I don't expect anything approximating production code for a looooong time.) [I'm still trying to make gdb work on the Altos, btw. Wish I knew more about such things. (The System V/386 port appears to want an incompatible stack frame, even with the System V/386 gcc.)] +--------------- | What if AT&T libc carried a similar restriction (namely, that any code | linked with it would fall under the AT&T copyrights)? In that case, | building GCC would place it under the AT&T copyright. In other words, | your "it's not a problem, there are other sources" attitude works for | the small case, but breaks badly in the larger scheme of things. +--------------- You are forgetting that AT&T and others learned long ago that such restrictions are a way of shooting oneself in the foot. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery (human), allbery@NCoast.ORG (Inet), BALLBERY (MCI Mail) ALLBERY (Delphi), uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery (UUCP), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) BrandonA (A-Online) ("...and a partridge in a pear tree!" ;-)