Hi

In this forum, there was a thread that mentioned that GNU code is being
used by lcc-win32.

This should be a violation of the GNU license. We did not know this,
and thought that just distributing the code would
be enough.

Therefore:

1: gdbm distribution is dropped from the lcc-win32 distribution
2: The function "edit_distance" is dropped from the library
3: The linux version of lcc-win32 is discontinued. We are trying to
evaluate how much effort will be to replace the bfd library
and use our own object file writing... Until then, no linux
version will be available.
4: The parts of lcc-win32 that called the gnu program "indent"
(that itself is derived from earlier code) have been deleted.
indent will no longer be distributed.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia said:

> Hi
>
> In this forum, there was a thread that mentioned that GNU code is being
> used by lcc-win32.

Before the anonytrolls get started, can I just point out that Mr Navia's
response to discovering that his product violates the GPL licence seems to
me to be a perfectly reasonable one. Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.

The world (or at least this bit of it) knows that I am far from being Mr
Navia's #1 fan, so I hope that his (many!) other critics will think
carefully about his response, rather than just lay into him blindly, which
would be a most foolish reaction.

<snip>

--
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

On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
Well, what options where available at the time?
Either change the project, or GPL it, or infringe GPL.

jacob navia:
Why not GPL your project? or at least make the source available?
It would save you from trouble, and it would certainly save heaps
of your time, that is if other people find it interesting and decide
to contribute.

vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
> Well, what options where available at the time?
> Either change the project, or GPL it, or infringe GPL.
>
> jacob navia:
> Why not GPL your project? or at least make the source available?
> It would save you from trouble, and it would certainly save heaps
> of your time, that is if other people find it interesting and decide
> to contribute.

If Jacob doesn't want to share his source he is entirely within his
rights to do so. If you want to try and persuade him, please do so in
comp.compilers.lcc.

Phil

--
Philip Potter pgp <at> doc.ic.ac.uk

vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com said:

> On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
> Well, what options where available at the time?

If, at the time he made the mistake, he was aware that he was making the
mistake, presumably he wouldn't have made the mistake. Your followup is
absurd.

--
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 wrote:
> vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
>> Well, what options where available at the time?
>
> If, at the time he made the mistake, he was aware that he was making the
> mistake, presumably he wouldn't have made the mistake. Your followup is
> absurd.
>

Well... yes

I thought that redistributing the source would cover my compliance with
the GPL. But the GPL people say that if I distribute (with source)
the GPL code, the lcc-win compiler must be GPLed too.

I am not a lawyer and prefer to avoid legal battles that I
can't afford anyway.

The same for the linux distribution that has costed me a lot
of work. I thought that just using a GPLed binaries would not
mean that my code is forced to change its license. Apparently
that is the case. I have to write now a module to write
elf format object files. This will be a lot of work.

I can't put my code under the GPL because I live from my
work. In a perfect world, I would give my work for free
and I would go to the supermarket and get food for free,
my home would have been given to me for free, etc. My kids
would get everything they need for free, etc.

This is apparently not the case. My supermarket is not GNU
and I have to pay for their goods.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org> writes:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>>>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
>>> Well, what options where available at the time?
>>
>> If, at the time he made the mistake, he was aware that he was making
>> the mistake, presumably he wouldn't have made the mistake. Your
>> followup is absurd.
>>
>
> Well... yes
>
> I thought that redistributing the source would cover my compliance with
> the GPL. But the GPL people say that if I distribute (with source)
> the GPL code, the lcc-win compiler must be GPLed too.
>
> I am not a lawyer and prefer to avoid legal battles that I
> can't afford anyway.
>
> The same for the linux distribution that has costed me a lot
> of work. I thought that just using a GPLed binaries would not
> mean that my code is forced to change its license. Apparently
> that is the case. I have to write now a module to write
> elf format object files. This will be a lot of work.
>
> I can't put my code under the GPL because I live from my
> work. In a perfect world, I would give my work for free
> and I would go to the supermarket and get food for free,
> my home would have been given to me for free, etc. My kids
> would get everything they need for free, etc.

Theoretically you can still earn money from the GPLd code as people are
"honour bound" to pay a license to use it if you so state.

Unfortunately in the real world it doesn't happen that often unless the
user really needs support.

> This is apparently not the case. My supermarket is not GNU
> and I have to pay for their goods.

In article <1192709803.337855.324270@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
<vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 2:27 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Everyone makes mistakes - what counts
>> is not that we make them, but how we react when we discover them.
>Well, what options where available at the time?
>Either change the project, or GPL it, or infringe GPL.
>
>jacob navia:
>Why not GPL your project? or at least make the source available?
>It would save you from trouble, and it would certainly save heaps
>of your time, that is if other people find it interesting and decide
>to contribute.

I, along with a lot of other people, think that Microsoft should GPL
their code. Then hackers around the world could post line-by-line
critiques of their code (which surely deserves it far more than any
newbie posting to CLC) and we'd have real fun.