chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (07/10/90)
According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman): > I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, > Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. > We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, this is rich. Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. I'm so amused I could just vomit. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (07/11/90)
In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation >compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. Sayyyyy... You don't suppose they used any GNU library code in the port do ya? HEY LOTUS! SEND ME THE 1-2-3 SOURCE OR I'LL COMPLAIN TO STALLMAN! :-) -- "Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you |*==| Tom Neff will -- that will uncover a lot of things. |===| tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72
jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan) (07/12/90)
In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman): >> I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, >> Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. >> We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. > >Oh, this is rich. > >Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation >compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. One can only hope that they screwed up, included part of the GNU source code, and will have to place the entire source code for Lotus into the General Public Licence! Now that would be rich....:-) -- Jim Sullivan Youth Culture Killed My Puppy! SCO Canada Inc. (Formerly HCR Corporation) ...!uunet!hcr!jim jim@hcr.com Opinions are mine. 416 922 1937
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (07/12/90)
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman): >> I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, >> Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. >> We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Oh, this is rich. >Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation >compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. >I'm so amused I could just vomit. Yeah.. So OK, Mr Stallman, let's see if your esteemed GPL and the FSF has any balls. Let's see some 1-2-3 source code. Here's your opportunity to make your mark on computing history.. Go for it. You have my support. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps. Both simply Atlanta, Ga | provide broker services for their customers. {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| - Dr. W Williams | **I am the NRA**
grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald) (07/12/90)
> John De Armond write: > > Yeah.. So OK, Mr Stallman, let's see if your esteemed GPL and the FSF > has any balls. Let's see some 1-2-3 source code. Here's your > opportunity to make your mark on computing history.. Go for it. > You have my support. > John -- Just as the FSF & RMS have said all along, you can compile commmerical applications with 'gcc', but you can not make a variant of 'gcc' and attempt to sell that. Examples: + the Object-C compiler that NeXT produced (when will we see this?) will be distributed by the FSF. + NeXT distributes the Gnu C compiler. + Data General distributes the Gnu C compiler with the Avvion system. However, if you compile an application with gnu C, you are not obligated to distribute that application. If you compile an application with Gnu G++, you are not obligated to distribute that application. If you depend on the Gnu C library or the Gnu G++ library, then yes, you are obligated to distribute that application. So, as I see it, Lotus is making perfectly proper use of Gnu C. Doesn't mean that they're not a bunch of sleazbags, but that's another story. Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Colorado at Boulder (grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu) (grunwald@boulder.colorado.edu)
gumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) (07/12/90)
Date: 12 Jul 90 03:15:28 GMT From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) Yeah.. So OK, Mr Stallman, let's see if your esteemed GPL and the FSF has any balls. Let's see some 1-2-3 source code. Here's your opportunity to make your mark on computing history.. Go for it. You have my support. This makes no sense to me. You can compile anything you want with GCC. The foundation has no claim and makes no claim on any code compiled with a gnu compiler and more than it makes a claim on any code edited with emacs. The lotus port to the sun used the sun libraries. I presume the port which sparked this discussion used that vendor's libraries.
zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E Spero) (07/12/90)
In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation
compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler.
I'm so amused I could just vomit.
--
Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
Say- remember all that stuff a while back when people were wondering whether
code compiled by gcc could fall under the CopyLeft. Anybody thinking what
I'm thinking? Anyone for operation "Locust Eater?"
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zmacx07@uk.ac.ic.doc | sispero%cix@specialix.co.uk | ..!ukc!slxsys!cix!sispero
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Poll Tax. |`And in my mind that's all you'll ever be|DoC,Imperial
I'm Not. Are you?| Spongiform Encepalophaphy' T Tikkaram |College,London SW7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) (07/13/90)
In article <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: >In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman): >>> I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, >>> Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. >>> We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. >> >>Oh, this is rich. >> >>Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation >>compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. > >One can only hope that they screwed up, included part of the GNU source code, >and will have to place the entire source code for Lotus into the General >Public Licence! Now that would be rich....:-) If the port was done by ISC for Lotus, it is unlikely that the source will become infected by the GPL virus. ISC doesn't own the rights to the source, and thus couldn't have transmitted these rights (even accidentally) to someone else. Now if Lotus distributes the resulting binary directly, that would be a different story perhaps... I personally have serious doubts about the enforcability of the GPL, but only a court (or several courts, most likely) can decide things like this. Maybe this is the opportunity to find out...
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (07/14/90)
Somebody said: > I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, > Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. > We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. Go for it RMS!!! > > I'm so amused I could just vomit. I think the phrase "tickled pink" would do the job... -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (07/15/90)
In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: | According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman): | > I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application, | > Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix. | > We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | Oh, this is rich. | | Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation | compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler. | | I'm so amused I could just vomit. And if you compile with gcc you then have to distribute the source with the binary, right? This could be interesting if someone wants to see (a) what the copyleft means and (b) if it has any force in law. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (07/15/90)
In article <1276@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > And if you compile with gcc you then have to distribute the source >with the binary, right? No, only if you use gnu source code -- e.g. a gnu library of some type. I doubt that Lotus did. -- "Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to." - Dan Bernstein
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (07/16/90)
In article <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM>, jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan) writes: > One can only hope that they screwed up, included part of the GNU source code, > and will have to place the entire source code for Lotus into the General > Public Licence! Now that would be rich....:-) As much as I disapprove of Lotus' sue-happy mentality, this illustrates a concern I have always had about the GNU license. It is too hard to tell if something falls under the license! For example, If I compile a program and use printf() and yyerror(), has the virus-like license attached itself to my code? I think this could be a problem if a case ever goes to court. The FSF could ease the confusion associated with this issue by either: 1) Allowing their runtime libraries to be freely ("really freely") used, as Borland did with their Turbo Pascal 1.0. 2) Provide a list of functions that would cause a piece of software to be placed under the GNU licence. This would allow someone to grep for these functions in their code to make sure their proprietary code does not violate the license. -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (07/17/90)
In article <393@necssd.NEC.COM> harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) writes: >As much as I disapprove of Lotus' sue-happy mentality, this illustrates >a concern I have always had about the GNU license. It is too hard to >tell if something falls under the license! Doesn't seem that hard to me. If you compile your program with gcc or g++, it doesn't fall under the library unless you explicitly link to a FSF library*, or install FSF header files**. The only FSF program which routinely produces output that is copylefted is bison. [ * old versions of g++ used to link in libg++ automatically but that's not true anymore. ** InterViews now contains all the header files you need. ] See, that's not too bad. Only 2 footnotes to that sentence, of which one is obselete and the other is something you must explicitly decide at installation time. -- "Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to." - Dan Bernstein
src@scuzzy.uucp (Heiko Blume) (07/17/90)
>Yeah.. So OK, Mr Stallman, let's see if your esteemed GPL and the FSF >has any balls. Let's see some 1-2-3 source code. Here's your >opportunity to make your mark on computing history.. Go for it. >You have my support. hey! i'd send $100 to support that trial *immediately* ! (i guess the FSF doesn't have enough money for a major court thing.) if enough people donate something it should work. -- Heiko Blume c/o Diakite blume@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org FAX (+49 30) 882 50 65 Kottbusser Damm 28 blume@netmbx.UUCP VOICE (+49 30) 691 88 93 D-1000 Berlin 61 blume@netmbx.de TELEX 184174 intro d "Have you bugged your source today?"
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/18/90)
In article <1276@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > And if you compile with gcc you then have to distribute the source >with the binary, right? Wrong.
rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) (07/18/90)
Dan Bernstein writes:
[ * old versions of g++ used to link in libg++ automatically but that's
not true anymore.
NOT TRUE!! As of the latest release (g++ version 1.37.2 alpha 2) g++
still (specifically gcc.c in the release) automagically includes -lg++
for you. So don't believe everything you read in the HINTS file! ;^}
I sent Michael Tiemann patches for g++-1.36.0 to create a
gcc-gnulibplus (gcc-gnulib + gnulib3 + xyzzy) and have g++ load with
that instead of gcc-gnulib. He acknowledged receiving them, but
declined to do anything about it. As it is, you need to get libg++ to
even compile and load a C++ program. An accident waiting to happen...
If anyone is interested in these patches, I'll see if I can dig them up
and post them yet again!
--
Ronald Cole | uucp: unify!rjc voice: +1 916 920 1830 x734
Software Engineer II | internet: csusac!unify!rjc@ucdavis.edu
Unify Corporation +----------------------------------------------------
"I've taken my mind apart and lost some of the pieces!" - Devo
--
Ronald Cole | uucp: unify!rjc voice: +1 916 920 1830 x734
Software Engineer II | internet: csusac!unify!rjc@ucdavis.edu
Unify Corporation +----------------------------------------------------
"I've taken my mind apart and lost some of the pieces!" - Devobrnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (08/19/90)
In article <RJC.90Jul17112141@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes: > Dan Bernstein writes: > [ * old versions of g++ used to link in libg++ automatically but that's > not true anymore. > NOT TRUE!! As of the latest release (g++ version 1.37.2 alpha 2) g++ > still (specifically gcc.c in the release) automagically includes -lg++ > for you. So don't believe everything you read in the HINTS file! ;^} No, Dan Bernstein does not write any such thing. I take no credit for Greg Lindahl's mistakes, even if he has adopted a quote of mine for his signature. (In context, the quote [``Perhaps I'm commenting a bit cynically, but I think I'm qualified to''] was making fun of him. He said that you need at least a year of experience in some field and continued ``until you have that experience, I don't think you're qualified to comment.'' I replied that I had such experience, etc. Now the guy uses it in his sig. Amazing what they must feed yuckies these days.) ---Dan