Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!stolaf!mike
From: mike@stolaf.UUCP (Mike Haertel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ Comparison in UNIX REVIEW
Message-ID: <775@stolaf.UUCP>
Date: 13 Nov 88 00:58:31 GMT
References: <307@drd.UUCP> <2060@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN
Lines: 33

In article <2060@cbnews.ATT.COM> shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes:
>In article <307@drd.UUCP> mark@drd.UUCP (Mark Lawrence) writes:
>>I chuckled at the Profile boxes wherein prices of each were compared.
>
>>	G++	$175
>>	Oasys	$795 - $5000
>>	Oregon	$1900 - $12000
>
>>I mean, what's to choose?
>
>Well, I like the price, too, but your typical client does not seem to 
>like the idea of paying for the development of software which they are 
>(apparently) then required to give away.

Object code produced by G++ does not fall under the copyleft, so you
can do anything you like with it.  Read the license agreement!
But object code originating in GNU libraries (that is loaded with
your program) IS copyrighted by FSF.  So if you want to distribute
proprietary binaries, you can't load them with GNU libraries.
But if you write your own C++ library, or use one from the public
domain or whose conditions permit you to distribute binaries
containing their object code, you can certainly use G++ as your
compiler.

When I was at FSF this summer RMS was thinking about modifying the
terms on GNU libraries.  I suspect he will only do this if it turns
out to be essential for the success of GNU.  I don't have a great
deal of sympathy with people who don't distribute source, so it
doesn't really matter to me which way he decides . . .

---
Mike Haertel
Really mike@stolaf.UUCP, but I read mail at mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu.