bpalmer@bbn.com (Brian Palmer) (09/19/89)
In "The NeXT Book" by Bruce Webster, he says: (page 134) Objective C is based on the Gnu C compiler developed by Richard Stallman. Release 0.9 has merged the Objective C syntax with the the Gnu C compiler to speed up compilation and to produce faster, more efficient code. Are they using FSF software in their product? Or is Webster just badly explaining the situation ... and Objective C is just preprocessing and passing C to gcc. Otherwise Gang, I see a Copyleft violation right? Brian
grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald) (09/19/89)
Allegedly, they merged objective C. However, they're also going to start distribution of this via FSF, so no copyleft violation exists.
raburns%ecotopia@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) (09/20/89)
In article <45768@bbn.COM> bpalmer@bbn.com (Brian Palmer) writes: > > >In "The NeXT Book" by Bruce Webster, he says: (page 134) > > Objective C is based on the Gnu C compiler developed by > Richard Stallman. Release 0.9 has merged the Objective > C syntax with the the Gnu C compiler to speed up compilation > and to produce faster, more efficient code. > >Are they using FSF software in their product? Or is Webster just badly >explaining the situation ... and Objective C is just preprocessing and >passing C to gcc. > >Otherwise Gang, I see a Copyleft violation right? I had heard something to the effect that NeXT was going to make their Objective C compiler GNUware. Now this sounds really nice, but there still is a problem: the NeXT objective C compiler will still only run on NeXT machines (which have a highly proprietary design). It seems to me that this meets the letter of the law without really enhancing the availability of standard GNUware particularly. Basically a company that has a highly proprietary architecture (i.e. NeXT) is put at a less of a disadvantage using GNUware this way than a company with a much more open strategy (i.e. Sun). If Sun had developed a product like the NeXT objective C compiler it would also run on all of its licensee's computers and would not give the group that developed it the same competitive advantage that NeXT is getting. Personally, I think the Free Software Foundation could best correct this situation and meet it's long term purpose by having a more flexible policy towards leasing out proprietary right to modify its code for a limited period of time. A lot of larger and defense- oriented firms would gladly be willing to pay for this privilege and the resulting funds could be used for software directed more at academic, non-profit and small business software. Note: The above opinions are my own and in no way should be taken to reflect those of my consulting client, Sun MicroSystems or any of its management.
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (09/20/89)
/ gnu.misc.discuss / raburns%ecotopia@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) / Sep 19, 1989 / > I had heard something to the effect that NeXT was going to make their > Objective C compiler GNUware. Now this sounds really nice, but there > still is a problem: the NeXT objective C compiler will still only run > on NeXT machines [...] RMS has already announced that he intends to merge NeXT's Objective-C work into the GNU C/C++ compiler. Thus, users of all systems for which gcc back-ends have been or can be developed can benefit from NeXT's work, just like NeXT benefited from other people's work by using gcc as the basis for their Objective-C compiler. This is EXACTLY the way "GNUware", as you call it, is supposed to work. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com {boulder,nucsrl}!gore!jacob
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (09/20/89)
In article <124947@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> raburns@sun.UUCP (Randy Burns) writes: >I had heard something to the effect that NeXT was going to make their >Objective C compiler GNUware. Now this sounds really nice, but there >still is a problem: the NeXT objective C compiler will still only run >on NeXT machines (which have a highly proprietary design). It seems to me >that this meets the letter of the law without really enhancing the >availability of standard GNUware particularly. Sounds to me like you completely misunderstand the GNU philosophy. No one is required to "enhance the availability of standard GNUware". Stallman's belief is that software manufacturer's shouldn't keep their products secret; object code should be freely distributable, and source code should be available to anyone who wants it. It has nothing to do with the area of applicability of the program; the same philosophy covers portable text editors and highly specialized application programs. Stallman has no legal way to force all software manufacturers to abide by his philosophy, but he can require that any derivative works of FSF software be covered by the copyleft. It sounds as thought NeXT is doing just that. Why would they want to spend the effort to write a generic Objective C compiler, when all they need is an Objective C that works on their machine? And since Stallman presumably doesn't believe in licensing restrictions, how could he conceivably condone a restriction that NeXT's compiler be general purpose? Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
raulmill@usc.edu (Raul Deluth Rockwell) (09/20/89)
In article <124947@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> raburns%ecotopia@Sun.COM (Randy Burns) writes: ;> In article <45768@bbn.COM> bpalmer@bbn.com (Brian Palmer) writes: ;> > In "The NeXT Book" by Bruce Webster, he says: (page 134) ;> > Objective C . . . Release 0.9 has merged the Objective C syntax ;> > with the the Gnu C compiler . . . I see a Copyleft violation ;> > right? ;> ;> I had heard . . . NeXT was going to make their Objective C compiler ;> GNUware. . . . but there still is a problem: the NeXT objective C ;> compiler will still only run on NeXT machines (which have a highly ;> proprietary design). ;> . . . ;> I think the Free Software Foundation could best correct this ;> situation and meet it's long term purpose by having a more flexible ;> policy towards leasing out proprietary right to modify its code for ;> a limited period of time. I'm confused by this last line. If Objective C is available in source, and if the CAPABILITY exists in the environment to support it, it should be quite possible to modify the source to run in your environment. --
schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (09/20/89)
In article <124947@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Randy Burns writes: | I had heard something to the effect that NeXT was going to make their | Objective C compiler GNUware. Now this sounds really nice, but there | still is a problem: the NeXT objective C compiler will still only run | on NeXT machines (which have a highly proprietary design). It seems to me | that this meets the letter of the law without really enhancing the | availability of standard GNUware particularly. What is it about the NeXT that makes the compiler useless elsewhere? Mach style object files? Calling conventions? What? (In a previous release, 0.8, Sun3 4.0 static binaries would execute without change on a NeXT.) Second, how does this violate the Copyleft agreement? I mean, if they mutate GCC into a new compiler, which they then give away, how can you complain??? -- Scott Schwartz <schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu>