Re: BSD Licensed C++ compiler

From: toby (toby_at_telegraphics.com.au)
Date: 11/10/05 

Date: 9 Nov 2005 15:02:52 -0800

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <1131491478.637255.68390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> writes:
> >
> > Casper H.S. *** wrote:
> >> "Karen Hill" <karen_hill22@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >I know SUN has a modern C++ compiler available but AFAIK you can only
> >> >use it to compile OpenSolaris. Otherwise you must pay thousands for
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> No, the only requirement is that you are registered at the OpenSolaris
> >> website; there are no restrictions on its use as you'll (necessarily)
> >> be developing Solaris software with it.
> >>
> >> I think the main reason there's no BSD C/C++ compiler is that the
> >> GNU "C/C++" compiler is "good enough".
> >
> > Also because the GPL imposes no conditions on software you build *with*
> > it.
> >
> In this way, the GPL is little different than REASONABLE license terms of
> proprietary compilers. (Some licenses are horrible, but considering the
> GPLed compilers to be very similar to proprietary will work for most of
> us.)

I also saw your earlier swipe at the GPL above. I call total BS. Would
it not be a public service to send memos detailing the 'unreasonable'
terms of gcc's GPL to the hundred million or so commercial programmers
using it daily for non-GPL products?

Has any of us, ever, written a program and compiled it with gcc (GPL'd
libs aside, of course) that due to gcc's GPL license was not legally
distributable under any license we chose? If so, please detail.

--T

>
> John