Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/12/29/22:37:30
"Damian Yerrick" <NOSP AT Msnews@pineight.8m.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>>
>> You can sell everything that is compiled with a legal copy of a
>> commercial compiler. That's implied in the license.
>
>I got a legal copy of CodeWarrior from Metrowerks, and its EULA
>said don't develop commercial software with this.
So they say:
Don't.
Not:
You have to pay us for every copy you sell.
Or:
You need a special license to compile your programs.
>You may develop
>free[beer]ware or shareware, but no payware. That's the difference
>between CodeWarrior Discovery and CodeWarrior Pro.
"Discovery". Mmh, yes. Sounds like "Student's Edition", "Introductory
Edition", "Learning Edition" or watchamacallit.
That's a different thing and _those_ are special licenses.
I meant a full commercial license.
And that's not a _special_, that's the _usual_ license (for a
commercial compiler).
Mmh, the usual way is just a little bit more expensive, like $499 or
so and not $49 with a book 'Learn COBOL in 21 Days'. :-)
>> >If they choose a
>> >GNU Compiler they don't need special licening.
>>
>> At least the compiler should be released under the _L_GPL.
>
>The libs (libc, the [in]famous -lstdcx[x], etc.) _are_ LGPL'd.
>A GPL'd compiler simply means that you have to distribute
>or link to source code *if you distribute the compiler*.
Mmh, ok. I once heard, everything compiled with GCC can only be
distributed under the GPL. It's a long time ago (before Quake ;-) and
it seems to be wrong.
>> For me the "real" GPL looks more strict than the license of a
>> commercial compiler: It requires you to release the source
>> with your programs.
>
>Which is why some of us hate Cygwin.
No problem for me. No Windoze - No Cygwin. ;-)
[...]
>and now you must pay...
What for? DJGPP? NASM? OpenDOS? No Way! :-)
Vinzent.
--
Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it
should be hard to understand.
- Raw text -