[comp.lang.c++] general class definitions

glenne@hplsla.HP.COM ( Glenn Engel) (07/23/88)

> Current & future solutions? How about writing some classes and solving
> the problem? Doug has been doing a great job with the G++ library.
> A couple of other people have tossed in a few additional packages, but
> by and large, ``what comes around goes around'', and you're only going to
> see software in libg++ if *you* contribute it.

  You need to be careful about ``what comes around goes around''.
  If you are using libg++ for a commercial product you should know
  that your product will fall under the GNU General Public License
  since libg++ does.  This will require you to offer for copying
  costs, all your source code.  I would like to see this restriction
  removed from libg++ so that it indeed will grow and grOW and GROW to
  be usable by everyone.
 

 |  Glenn R. Engel
 |  hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!glenne

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/26/88)

In article <6590058@hplsla.HP.COM> glenne@hplsla.HP.COM (           Glenn Engel) writes:
>  ... This will require you to offer for copying
>  costs, all your source code.  I would like to see this restriction
>  removed from libg++ so that it indeed will grow and grOW and GROW to
>  be usable by everyone.

Don't bet on it.  This is an ideological issue for RMS (and others); he
wants ALL source to be available for copying costs.  In fact he considers
any other policy not merely misguided but evil.  I'd be very surprised to
see any compromises made on this.  Buying into this ideology is the price
you pay for using the software.  (Betcha thought the stuff was free!)
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

grunwald@m.cs.uiuc.edu (07/27/88)

My impression was that this occured only for ROM code.

For other programs, it's possible to produce the .o files & have the 
person link in the libraries at installation time. If you use the libg++
headers, you'd need to include source for those as well, but not source
for your program.

I think that this needs to be publicly clarified.

clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (07/28/88)

From article <1988Jul25.194637.22208@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <6590058@hplsla.HP.COM> glenne@hplsla.HP.COM (           Glenn Engel) writes:
>>  ... This will require you to offer for copying
>>  costs, all your source code.  I would like to see this restriction
>>  removed from libg++ so that it indeed will grow and grOW and GROW to
>>  be usable by everyone.
> 
> Don't bet on it.  This is an ideological issue for RMS (and others); he
> wants ALL source to be available for copying costs.  In fact he considers
> any other policy not merely misguided but evil.  I'd be very surprised to
> see any compromises made on this.  Buying into this ideology is the price
> you pay for using the software.  (Betcha thought the stuff was free!)

Which so very effectively means all the FSF software is toy software
only, no matter how good it is.  Even if I personally (or you) might
not like that.

A very good point, about free lunches.  I wonder how many people
realized about this, donating their effort to produce FSF things.

Really, it's all a great disappointment.  It's not sharing at all, I
think.

Clive Steward

raisch@eecae.UUCP (Rob Raisch) (08/03/88)

In article <8340@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) says:
> 
> From article <1988Jul25.194637.22208@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
>> In article <6590058@hplsla.HP.COM> glenne@hplsla.HP.COM (           Glenn Engel) writes:
>>>  ... This will require you to offer for copying
>>>  costs, all your source code.  I would like to see this restriction
>>>  removed from libg++ so that it indeed will grow and grOW and GROW to
>>>  be usable by everyone.

[Other responses deleted.]

Ok, once and for all, I would like to know just what the FSF policies
are!  Here are a few questions that I hope someone might be able to
answer:
	1.	I use G++ to develop an application.  Do I have the
	right to sell the application without supplying source?

	2.	I use GDB to debug a recalcitrant application.  Do I
	have the right to sell the application without supplying source?

	3.	I use libg++ within an application.  Do I have the right
	to sell the application without supplying source?

	4.	Re: question #3, what source must I supply?  Just the
	libg++ source or by including it in my application do I `taint'
	everything that I have written? 

I sincerely agree with the efforts and philosophy of the Free Software
Foundation, but I was under the impression that it was `system software'
that should be `free, like air...', not the fruits of the application
programmer.  Perhaps I have misunderstood........

Robert Raisch - Case Center, Michigan State University.
--- raisch@eecae.ee.msu.edu or {backbones}!msudoc!raisch ---