Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!boulder!grunwald
From: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Lotus 1-2-3 was compiled with GNU C compiler!?
Message-ID: <23392@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 12 Jul 90 04:40:52 GMT
References: <17032@haddock.ima.isc.com> <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp>
	<3141@rsiatl.UUCP>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu
Followup-To: comp.sources.d
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 39
In-reply-to: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP's message of 12 Jul 90 03:15:28 GMT


> John De Armond write:
> 
> Yeah.. So OK, Mr Stallman, let's see if your esteemed GPL and the FSF
> has any balls.  Let's see some 1-2-3 source code.  Here's your 
> opportunity to make your mark on computing history..  Go for it.
> You have my support.
> John
--

Just as the FSF & RMS have said all along, you can compile commmerical
applications with 'gcc', but you can not make a variant of 'gcc' and
attempt to sell that.

Examples:
	+ the Object-C compiler that NeXT produced (when will we see this?)
	  will be distributed by the FSF.

	+ NeXT distributes the Gnu C compiler.

	+ Data General distributes the Gnu C compiler with the Avvion system.

However, if you compile an application with gnu C, you are not
obligated to distribute that application. If you compile an
application with Gnu G++, you are not obligated to distribute that
application.

If you depend on the Gnu C library or the Gnu G++ library, then yes,
you are obligated to distribute that application.

So, as I see it, Lotus is making perfectly proper use of Gnu C.

Doesn't mean that they're not a bunch of sleazbags, but that's another
story.



Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Colorado at Boulder	(grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu)
						(grunwald@boulder.colorado.edu)