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**
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...
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
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