gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/21/88)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) wrote: > As I understand it, NO software bundled with the Next box has been built > with GNU-C, but instead with Stepstone Objective-C. According to the info given to the press at the introduction, this is false. Objective-C is a preprocessor which generates C code. This is fed to the GNU C compiler. The GNU debugger and Emacs are also supplied. Other information leads me to believe that NeXT has enhanced the debugger so it can display and trace the original Objective-C code rather than the dense inscrutable intermediate C code. Also, the subroutine libraries are not from the GNU project (I'd guess they are mostly just the Unix libraries). This avoids the problem of linking GNU-copyrighted code into your binaries.* The GNU's Bulletins v1#4 and v1#5 say: "Thanks to NEXT, Inc., for their improvements to the GNU Assembler and GNU Debugger." and "Thanks to NeXT, Inc., for their cash donation." John Gilmore * Code generated BY a compiler is NOT considered copyrighted by the compiler's owner, under US copyright case law. However, code generated FROM copyrighted sources IS copyrighted by the source code owner. Thus if you write foo.c, you own foo.o too, and the owner of "cc" has no rights in it. But if you link foo.o with libc.a, the owner of libc.a has rights in the resulting program. AT&T, and some other compiler vendors, have specifically given away these rights, allowing you to use their binary libraries in your programs without limitation. The Free Software Foundation does not give away these rights, though it is a topic of debate. Let's not debate it here. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Noriega-Bush in '88 -- a *crack* team. Let's put the white powder (CIA = Cocaine Import Agency) in the white house!
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (10/22/88)
In article <5716@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >According to the info given to the press at the introduction, this is false. >Objective-C is a preprocessor which generates C code. This is fed to the >GNU C compiler. The GNU debugger and Emacs are also supplied. One of the things that disturbs me about this is the following: GNU emacs is a moving target, and by and large the motion is in positive directions. Similarly for the compiler, linker, etc. etc. etc. To what extent has NeXT altered these components in a way that will preclude my keeping them up to date off of GNU's distributions? In particular, I am concerned about the implications for library compatibility, or more generally, How do I know that when I upgrade my GNU compiler to 1.N+1 that it will continue to be compatible with the portion of the NeXT stuff that is proprietary? Jon
julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) (10/26/88)
In article <4608@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: >To what extent has NeXT altered these components in a way that will >preclude my keeping them up to date off of GNU's distributions? In >particular, I am concerned about the implications for library >compatibility, or more generally, How do I know that when I upgrade my >GNU compiler to 1.N+1 that it will continue to be compatible with the >portion of the NeXT stuff that is proprietary? Any changes that have been made to the GNU code will have to remain free according to the copylefts. I would venture to say that the FSF will incorporate NeXT's changes into the official distributions so that subsequent releases will continue to be supported on the NeXT computer. julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu uunet!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!julian julian@uhccux.bitnet "People who aren't amused don't talk."