Re: Now it's my compiler!

[Rjack]

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> 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.
Which is complete, 100% bullshit. You don't control "commercial 
compilers" so how do know?

> 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 SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission 
from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for
the privilege.

> 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.

By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)