Re: Now it's my compiler!

[Andrew Halliwell]

Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <9KWdnfvjH6NjnkHVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Rjack  <user@example.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
>>> it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
>>> damn business.
>> 
>> Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.
>> 
>> The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically
>> find in commercial software, not about the GPL.
> 
> Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my
> argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie
> put-down. 

The only strawmen here are ones created by you.

> How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler
> or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's
> none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I
> use. I stand by that assertion.

Learn to read, thicko.
All he was saying is, with a GPL compiler you can distribute it.
With a commercial compiler, you can not distribute it.
With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
the privilage.

With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
you bound by the GPL yourself.

By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|  Andrew Halliwell BSc    |Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|