Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!orc!inews!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!chinet!laird
From: laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Gnu C Compiler for MPW Unchained!
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.104024.6150@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 13 Dec 90 10:40:24 GMT
References: <1990Dec5.202855.6434@eng.umd.edu> <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us> <11494@goofy.Apple.COM>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Lines: 51

In article <11494@goofy.Apple.COM> shebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) writes:
>In article <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes:
>
>>Apple is saying that the binaries they are distributing require the sources
>>for gcc to be compiled by the MPW C compiler.
>
>GCC can recompile itself, but we include builds with MPW C as a convenience;
>it's not required.

I thought I read that there was a nasty bug (SANE on a 68000 - gee that 
includes my Portable I'm typing on) that necessitated compiling with MPW.
Hence, one cannot reproduce his binaries without MPW C.
>
>>It would seem to me, then,
>>that they are incorporating the MPW C compiler as a part of their port of
>>gcc, and they should release the sources to MPW C as an integral part of
>>the distribution.
>
>Following this line of reasoning, "complete" sources includes libs, includes, 
>the command shell, the operating system, the test code used to exercise
>the motherboard in the factory, ad infinitum.  Pretty silly.  Note that
>GCC-dependent vendors such as NeXT haven't volunteered to release all of
>their sources either...

It is a special case of distributing a compiler.  Macintosh software are
also special cases in that the operating system is subordinate to the
particular application.  Here, Apple must claim that the gcc complier is
a complete package, and the question is where should the line be drawn.
It seems to me that a compiler that will not compile itself correctly is
not a complete package.

It is also true that distributing object-only is mostly a convenience to
the vendor.  A commercial convenience, but nonetheless a nuisance to the
customers.  You know how nice it is to look up the PL/S source in the fiche
sometimes?  I haven't had to do it for years now, but it sure came in handy
when I did have to.
>
>						Stan Shebs
>						Apple ATG System Software
>						shebs@apple.com

I sincerely hope there comes a time when a user of software has the right
to the source code, if only when a vendor decides to desupport it.  There
is no need to compete as a software supplier, but when a commercial user
loses support, he should have the right to second-source without the need
to have someone reverse-engineer his current system.


-- 
Laird J. Heal                           The Usenet is dead!
Here:  laird@chinet.chi.il.us		Long Live the Usenet!