Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>

> No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.

Provided there are no legal objections (e.g. GPL "pollution"), isn't it up
to him what he does with his source code?

I wouldn't care to put an accurate figure on the percentage of my code that
I publish, but it makes up a very small percentage of the code I write.
How much I publish is my decision, not yours. I see no reason why the same
shouldn't apply to Mr Navia.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:
zO6dnd8IDeQubonanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Charlie Gordon said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.
>
> Provided there are no legal objections (e.g. GPL "pollution"), isn't it up
> to him what he does with his source code?
>
> I wouldn't care to put an accurate figure on the percentage of my code
> that
> I publish, but it makes up a very small percentage of the code I write.
> How much I publish is my decision, not yours. I see no reason why the same
> shouldn't apply to Mr Navia.

I was merely making a joke with an afterthought.

I am not ordering Jacob anything. I just expressed my opinion about
lcc-win32 and the best way IMHO to improve it, promote it, and provide for
an alternative to M$ lock on W$ development tools and methodology.
Publishing the source code is of course his decision (and his co-authors if
any).

--
Chqrlie.