[comp.misc] BISON, GCC, and the GNU public

gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (08/04/89)

Re: Workstations that come with GNU software

The NeXT workstation's cc man page says that cc is a version of gnu_cc
extensively modified to support objective C.  I am hard-pressed to
understand how they can charge money for the NeXT workstation, when
the central piece of software was developed by GNU.  Isn't this
"selling" GNU software?

cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/06/89)

In article <79700024@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Re: Workstations that come with GNU software
>
>The NeXT workstation's cc man page says that cc is a version of gnu_cc
>extensively modified to support objective C.  I am hard-pressed to
>understand how they can charge money for the NeXT workstation, when
>the central piece of software was developed by GNU.  Isn't this
>"selling" GNU software?

I'm an historian, so complex computer-related issues may strain my
limited intellectual capabilities, but I find it ~extremely~ difficult
to see any justification for your assertion, which I interpret as,

value of NeXT = f(value of its c compiler).

This is essentially equivalent to saying that

value of IBM XT = f(value of its Basic interpreter).

Since I'm a mere historian, not a high-paid computer specialist, I'm
doubtless venturing into areas where I don't know what I'm talking
about, but using what I've got (an historical sense),* I would suggest
that the commercial value of the IBM 14*, 16*, 360/*, 370/*,
the DEC 11/*, the VAX */*, etc., was ~essentially~ unrelated to ~any
one~ piece of software, least of all the C (Fortran, Cobol, Autocoder,
or whatever) compiler!

Or, to get even more contemporary, how many institutions have bought
Crays because they could run ~Fortran~ on them?

*This is not just an intellectual (=learned from books) historical
sense.  My original field was electrical engineering, and I worked my
way through graduate school as a programmer on CDC 1604, 3600, Univac
1170, IBM 370/*, etc. systems.

As an heuristic exercise, imagine that the NeXT (I hate cutesy names
with silly case shifts in them) machine did not have the GNU cc
compiler or any other GNU software.  Do you seriously think its market
value would be zero?  If you do, perhaps you should (re)enroll in
economics 101, 1a, or whatever!

desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (08/08/89)

> In article <79700024@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> >The NeXT workstation's cc man page says that cc is a version of gnu_cc
> >extensively modified to support objective C.  I am hard-pressed to
> >understand how they can charge money for the NeXT workstation, when
> >the central piece of software was developed by GNU.  Isn't this
> >"selling" GNU software?

Read the license. You CAN sell GNU software. What it does mean (if I
interpret some recent postings in gnu.announce correctly) is that the
Next C compiler - source and all - will soon become freely distributable.
Market effects will make it difficult to sell in competition with free
distribution, but that is a different story entirely. 

flamers please note - this is NOT because it was built with BISON or GCC -
it is because it USES the code to GCC directly. The former case is fuzzy,
as "fair use" of a library or parser skeleton is rather broad. "Fair use"
of the code to a compiler is pretty narrow - I would think it would be
limited pretty much to archiving and fixing bugs. 

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      (408) 974-4469

disclaimer - I do not speak for the FSF. 

ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (08/08/89)

On 7 Aug 89 17:46:31 GMT,
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) said:
         ^^^^^

Peter>                                       Peter Desnoyers
Peter>                                       Apple ATG
                                             ^^^^^
Peter>                                       (408) 974-4469

Peter> disclaimer - I do not speak for the FSF. 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This gets the Most Obvious Disclaimer of the Year Award.
-C
--
  /\  | /  |\  @bu-pub.bu.edu <preferred>  | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90
 /    |/   | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu |   [No, I don't speak for BU...]
 \    |\   | /  <for stupid sendmails>     |      BITNET: smghy6c@buacca 
  \/  | \  |/  @bucsb.UUCP <last resort>  or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta.
 ** IF YOU REPLY TO THE ADDRESS IN THE PATH: LINE IT *WILL* BOUNCE!!! --CKD **