On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> Rjack wrote: > >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too. > >>> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance > >>>http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html > > >> Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly > >> says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. > > > Quote: > > > "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. > > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
OK, I'm missing something here. If, legally (obviously technical considerations are a different axis): [1] GPL code + GPL compiler = distributable binary but [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case? Section 4.2.3 is not all that clear on this question, and completely *ignores* the issue of a support API (which a C++ compiler must have in order to handle things such as dynamic_cast<> and the ability to call the kernel), though in all fairness the author might have simply bundled it in with the "proprietary, third-party compiler" concept instead. Granted, if said compiler accepts constructs (#pragma is the only one coming to mind) the GPL variant does not, there's a few issues that may have to be worked through; ideally, an astute developer will feed back a new version of the distributed source with appropriate corrections. Fortunately, in C++'s case, one can use #if or #ifdef, and GNU does provide a number of tools (autogen, autoconf, etc. etc.) which might assist in handling variations of support API/libc() on various systems. Most C++ compilers also provide predefined symbols for use in #if/#ifdef. 4.2.3 *is* clear in that one need not distribute the actual compiler in order to meet the GPL requirement, although ideally (as the second paragraph points out) one could easily do so if the compiler is itself FOSS. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss