Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!SEAS.UCLA.EDU!bilbo.geoff
From: bilbo.geoff@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: GNU C++ for toolkits
Message-ID: <8801261220.AA26059@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 26 Jan 88 00:33:49 GMT
References: <2479@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

In article <2479@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> William E. Sommerfield writes:
> >Although it is free, GNU is not public domain.  Their license contains some
> >significant restrictions, which makes it unusable for a commercial product.
> >While some might not consider this a problem, it will certainly prevent it
> >from becoming a standard.  This suggests it is not a good choice as a basis
> >for Xtk.

> Wrong.  The license for GNU CC (and GNU C++) states only that you are
> compelled to distribute source to the compiler, or an offer to
> distribute source to the compiler in exchange for a distribution fee;
> it does not say that anything compiled with it must be covered by
> those terms, and GCC doesn't put a GNU `copyleft' into its output.

Wrong yourself.  Such a deal, if I want to use Gnu C++ I am forced to be
ready at any time to make a large and complex source distribution available
to my customers;  among other things this opens me up to the possibility
of legal action from them should Gnu C++ fail on them.

One only has to read the Gnu Manifesto (or Stallman's more recent allegation
that the world's security needs are identical to those of MIT Lincoln Labs)
to realize that the Free Software Foundation has some staff members who are,
shall we say, slightly separated from the realities of the larger world.
One of those is the reality of needing more flexible licensing.

> Also, the bizarre licensing `restrictions' on GNU C++ are irrelevant

Note that "bizarre" is Bill's word, not mine.  (This doesn't invalidate
his point about the irrelevancy, however).

	Geoff Kuenning	geoff@lcc.ucla.edu	geoff@ITcorp.com