Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34954 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1742 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!damien From: damien@b63519.student.cwru.edu (Damien Neil) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Followup-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Date: 19 Apr 1993 15:36:33 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Lines: 23 Message-ID: <1qugu1$g30@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9] <Groan> Why am I following up to this thread? Peter da Silva (peter@NeoSoft.com) wrote: : In article <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: : > Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft : > used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or, : > rather, a derivative product of your code and their code). : "Used to". : Quite a long time ago. : Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require : a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it. Are you saying that code produced by a GPL compiler is forced to be under the GPL? If so, you are wrong. I can use gcc to make an application, link in a GPL'd library, and sell the whole thing for thousands of dollars while keeping the source code in a locked safe in Siberia. The only restriction the GPL imposes is that programs that contains actual GPL'd source code must fall under the GPL. (Note: linking in a library != using source code.) -- Damien Neil dpn2@po.cwru.edu "Until someone debugs reality, the best Case Western Reserve University I can do is a quick patch here and there." CMPS/EEAP Linux -- the choice of a GNU generation. -Erik Green