Re: Now it's my compiler!

[The Ghost In The Machine]

On Sep 26, 6:03 am, Chris Ahlstrom <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
>   this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> Rjack <u...@example.net> writes:
> >> >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
>
> >> > "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
> >> > software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."
>
> >> > Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
> >> > compiler.
>
> >> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler.  Your
> >> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.
>
> > OK, I'm missing something here.
>
> You certainly are, Ghost.
>
> Rjack is a troll.  Nothing more.

A troll espousing a concern, yes.  Of course, two can play at that
game,
if one wants to dig, which I'm not all that willing to do at this
point
beyond mentioning that Microsoft has swallowed a fair bit of BSD
code (e.g., the Win95 TCP/IP protocol stack -- though in all fairness,
they did give proper credit.

I think we can agree that the *compiler* cannot be shipped, though.
There are some quibbles about the run-time environment, depending
on the precise EULA thereon; ideally, if non-FOSS, it would be shipped
under a license barring reverse engineering and modification but
otherwise
freely copyable, given proper crediting.

Also, if one is trying to discredit the license, I for one would
hope for an alternative such as the BSD license that would
be usable in its stead (the BSD does not quite qualify, unfortunately,
mostly because such code and has dropped into a nice deep hole,
never to be seen by mortal man again).

>
> If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
> lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.

Depending on company size, that may get into independent contractor
space.  Best I can do is mention Sun's interesting struggles with
ensuring they do not lose control of Java's source code, with their
JCP license; the results do not look very satisfactory from a
redistribution standpoint although one can vet the code in the
privacy of his bedroom/study/den/basement readily enough, if
he should feel the need.

AIUI, Microsoft has a process for individuals to vet their code
as well, but they also have to sign a non-disclosure agreement,
and contribute satisfactory remuneration.  I seem to recall that
AT&T had a similar policy with regard to old Unix code; for
about $20K one could get the kit, but couldn't redistribute it.

>
> --
> Entreprenuer, n.:
>         A high-rolling risk taker who would rather
>         be a spectacular failure than a dismal success.