Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:59:16 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com> Cc: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>, leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, nate@trout.sri.MT.net, hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user Message-ID: <199506092159.PAA01818@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199506101852.LAA28328@netcom11.netcom.com> References: <199506101757.KAA06064@kithrup.com> <199506101852.LAA28328@netcom11.netcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > A simple reading of the license would show you that lcc is MORE restrictive > > than gcc. > > ``Different'' restrictions, Sean, not MORE restrictive. See below. Actually, since the license is pretty vague, in it's 'safest' interpretation the license is still more restrictive. > > 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. I disagree. There are too many things that aren't plain enough in the copyright to make it safe to distribute it and make money at the same time. Note, even though lcc may not be the primary money-maker, the license is not specific enough to allow someone like WC to distribute the compiler w/out the possibility of being sued for 'making money' from the compiler. > 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. I'm glad. I've got the compiler on my box now, and may even try to get it to work but until the license is cleared up, I won't suggest adding it to the ports tree let alone use it as the default compiler. > 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. But some folks use FreeBSD for commercial use. Are they no longer allowed to use lcc? Also, 'fair use' isn't specific enough to warrant getting into a legal hassle. Again, I'm no legal expert but have enough experience with the legal process to know that unless it's crystal clear, it's not worth hassling with, especially considering the 'free' status of FreeBSD. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506092159.PAA01818>