Re: Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

jacob navia wrote, On 26/12/07 22:43:
Richard Harter wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:19 -0500, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jacob navia wrote:
Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...
gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,
No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.
Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

That's what he said: I quote (requote if you like):
"If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL."

I dunno about paying big bucks to Red Hat about getting around
GPL - sounds fishy to me - but your "correction" doesn't mention
that. You just reasserted what Jacob already said.

Cygnus corp made big bucks by selling versions
of gcc to people and allowing them with big
license fees to get away without disclosing their source.

They were a profitable company based exclusively on gcc
sales. They were bought by RedHat.

I don't know about when Cygnus ran it, but certainly when I started using it what you are saying is completely wrong. The item with a restrictive license was (and I believe still is) cygwin.dll which is the *nix compatibility layer. If you application links against it and you distribute it you either have to GPL you application or buy a license. However, if you do not link against cygwin.dll (for example by telling gcc to work like it does in the MinGW environment (by following the instructions Cygwin provides) then you can sell your application as a closed source applciation.

In other words you are mostly wrong.

Note that I am not against RedHat making money. I just
did not want to work for them FOR FREE.

When did you last see RedHat employees or shareholders posting here advocating RedHat?

The problem with GNU from a developer viewpoint is that you toil and
work for years to do something, and somebody else sells it for
a profit without giving you a penny. This is a personal choice,
I do respect people that work for RedHat and develop device drivers
and compilers and stuff without being paid at all.

I just do not want to do that myself. I give my work away too,
but I am the owner of my work. Not somebody else.

Most of the regulars you complain about certainly have not said you should not sell your work. I had sympathy for you earlier in this thread (and posted to that effect) but you have lost it by repeatedly misrepresenting what others are saying.
--
Flash Gordon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Making C better (by borrowing from C++)
    ... If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR ... application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: TMS470
    ... Jack - I read the/a GNU license numerous years ago which required distributing source and a part of a recent GPL license which does the same. ... source code along with your code, the entire source code falls under the GPL. ... That's fair enough - you are using the gcc source code, and the authors ask that you are equally generous with your modifications. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: GCC compiler
    ... I tried to compile a C source code, ... The Makefile script is: ... I can see it’s missing the im.h of my gcc lib. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Does Microchip play fast and loose with the GPL?
    ... and the source code they released for their C30 compiler doesn't ... released was clearly not built from the source code they released. ... Yes, the GPL requires them to release the source code for the binaries they ship - but only to those to whom they have given the binaries, and then only if they ask for them. ... It is close to impossible to integrate closed-source optimisers with gcc - the gcc architecture is specifically monolithic to avoid it. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: GCC compiler
    ... I tried to compile a C source code, ... Seems like you are not including stdlib.h so malloc is not defined ... I can see it’s missing the im.h of my gcc lib. ...
    (Debian-User)