Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bagate!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ads.com!killer!usenet From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Gnu C Compiler for MPW Unchained! Message-ID: <1990Dec15.024400.17557@verity.com> Date: 15 Dec 90 02:44:00 GMT References: <1990Dec5.202855.6434@eng.umd.edu> <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us> <1990Dec11.202347.26210@verity.com> <1990Dec13.104620.6232@chinet.chi.il.us> Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News) Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 71 In-Reply-To: laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) In article <1990Dec13.104620.6232@chinet.chi.il.us>, laird@chinet (Laird J. Heal) writes: >In article <1990Dec11.202347.26210@verity.com> anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) writes: >>In article <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us>, laird@chinet (Laird J. Heal) writes: >>> >>>Here, however I would like to note that the GNU Public License (which Apple >>>is probably subscribing to - I have not bothered to ftp COPYING from the gcc >>>distribution at apple) requires a vendor to make ALL source code available. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>This is wrong and just plain absurd! Along that same line of >>reasoning, since we need MPW in the first place, Apple should release >>the source code to that as well. > >You can run an MPW tool standalone. I hope you just got caught up in >the spirit of argumentativeness. > Huh? I've never been able to run MPW tools without MPW... Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this point is at all relevant to the discussion. And no, I'm not being argumentative - the GNU COPYING policy does NOT cover source code of tools used to bring up GNU products on a particular platform. You always need the native tool at least once, even if you are later able to recompile GCC with itself. Think about the GNU products that aren't able to re-generate themselves after they've been compiled the first time. In this case you're not able to complete this last (optional) step, but I don't see what difference that makes. >> Oh, but you also need to run the >>Macintosh OS in order to run MPW, so I guess we'll have to give you >>the sources to that, too. I don't think this was the original >>intention of the GNU project's copyleft policy. More specifically, at >>the bottom of Paragraph 3 in COPYING: >> >> "Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work >> for making modifications to it. >> >>The key phrase is "for making modifications to it," >> >I believe it was made clear that there was a nasty bug in the compiler >which prevented it from being usable if it were compiled by itself. >That is, it was only usable if produced by MPW C. That being the case, >where does the C compiler begin and where does it end? Standard libraries >are one thing, usable source code is another. If the fix to the bug in >source code lies in other source code...should the license not cover that >other source code? No. It doesn't make one whit of difference that GCC is only usable when produced by MPW C. You can't use the fact that there exists a bug in an environment or in modifications to GNU code to make the argument that proprietary source code should be made available. Just so I won't be mistaken for a GNU-basher I'll repeat again what I said at the end of my last message: >Don't get me wrong - I think the GNU project has contributed immensely >to the state of the art, and I believe that its policy on distributing >source code works well and that GNU are well within their rights to do >so. However, I don't think its intention was, nor is it capable of, >being a means of coercing other entities (ie. Apple, or you and me) >to follow the same philosophy as the GNU project with respect to THEIR >PRODUCTS. >-- >Laird J. Heal The Usenet is dead! >Here: laird@chinet.chi.il.us Long Live the Usenet!