From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 10 11:54:15 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA19344 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:54:15 -0700 Received: from netcom11.netcom.com (bakul@netcom11.netcom.com [192.100.81.121]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA19338 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:54:13 -0700 Received: from localhost by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id LAA28328; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:52:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199506101852.LAA28328@netcom11.netcom.com> To: Sean Eric Fagan cc: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, nate@trout.sri.mt.net, hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 Jun 95 10:57:59 PDT." <199506101757.KAA06064@kithrup.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 11:51:59 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > A simple reading of the license would show you that lcc is MORE restrictive > than gcc. ``Different'' restrictions, Sean, not MORE restrictive. See below. > Yeah, it's smaller, and, yeah, it compiles faster. And, yeah, it generates > worse code. And, yeah, it's got a lint version which would be useful -- but > I won't touch it. Right. It is also easier to modify, easier add new backends for, and by far easier to understand than gcc. For a two person effort it is an excellent compiler. It is far from perfect and it can certainly use quite a few additional optimizations. > Unless they've changed the license recently, which I suspect they haven't, > you don't want to use lcc at all. In particular, Walnut Creek CD-ROM > (or any other entity that sells FreeBSD, either as itself, or just on media) > doesn't want to get into that legal mess. Can't speak for WC and others but I believe the present copyright allows them distributing lcc. See below. I also think that anyone who stays away from lcc misses out on an excellent compiler. The present license is certainly good enough for me. > lcc is a *fine* instructional compiler, and you can go out and buy a copy of > the LCC Book (something about "Compiler Design," I think). But don't think > that it's a replacement for gcc. It is a fine compiler (adding instructional sounds like a put down to me). It is not a replacement for gcc if you are using gcc's extensions. For *BSD at the very least we need support for long long which some of us are in the process of adding. When lcc 3 first came out I complained about the contradictory copyright and I queried Dave Hanson (one of the authors) on this. I asked ... It is not clear to me if one can use lcc, for example, as part of NetBSD or FreeBSD (two free variants of BSD unix). While one can get sources to either OS and associated user programs, there are people contemplating (or already) selling them. He wrote back (among other things) including lcc without modification in another distribution is OK. The COPYRIGHT file now says (in part) lcc is available free for your personal research and instructional use under the `fair use' provisions of the copyright law. You may, however, redistribute the lcc in whole or in part provided you acknowledge its source and include this COPYRIGHT file. It is still not as free as software under BSD style copyright. Under the terms of the COPYRIGHT you can create a compiler for, say, Intel 4004, and sell the 4004 code generator and give away lcc (after acknowledging its use) but you can't, for example create a c++ compiler using it without negotiating with the authors. The latter restriction is a good thing IMHO:-) Anyway, check it out for yourself. Don't just rely on my or Sean's comments. --bakul