From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Mar 18 17:13: 0 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAAC37B541 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:12:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22856; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:12:47 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000318180821.03e7d550@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:25 -0700 To: "Thomas M. Sommers" , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" In-Reply-To: <38D418CF.B12A75DE@mail.ptd.net> References: <4.2.2.20000317173928.040fec50@localhost> <4.2.2.20000317234800.03e7c380@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 05:01 PM 3/18/2000 , Thomas M. Sommers wrote: >How would the existence of a second free C compiler make it easier for >Borland to sell their compiler? The existence of a BSD-licensed compiler would allow companies to add value without starting from scratch. >And anyway, Borland has a history of >opening up (giving away) "obsolete" products (in the Windows world, >command line tools are for all practical purposes obsolete). There is, >for instance, a port of TurboVision in the ports collection. Their C compiler isn't obsolete. >I suspect that the reason there is no free alternative to GCC is that >a C++ compiler is so hard to write that license considerations are not >enough to motivate anyone to undertake the task. I think it's because people don't yet recognize the harm caused by having a GPLed product dominate a product category. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message