Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!rtech!gonzo!daveb
From: daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Back to the g++ library pit, briefly.
Summary: Why not use the AT&T library?
Message-ID: <458@gonzo.UUCP>
Date: 12 Nov 88 18:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Distribution: na
Organization: Gonzo Media Group
Lines: 20

In <2060@cbnews.ATT.COM> shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes:
>I like the price [of g++], 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.  I know that the Copyleft has 
>been discussed to death here, but I still can't see how to sell it to 
>clients especially since I'm not entirely certain that agree with or 
>even undertand it.

The major problem with g++ (aside from no 1.30!) is the copyleft on the
library.  As far as I can figure, there is no restriction on the code
written by the compiler proper, only on use of the library.

So, what would be wrong with buying the AT&T c++ source, tossing away
cfront, and using the library source with g++?  $175 + $2k for complete
source code of a compiler and a library with no restrictions is very
reasonable compared to the more formal commercial offerings.

Is there something I'm missing?

-dB