Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:52:07 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ned Ulbricht cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs In-Reply-To: <34E06236.3D3B@ee.washington.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Ned Ulbricht wrote: > First, this idea would benefit not just the djgpp community, but the > whole gcc community. I'm completely in favor of it. DJGPP is the only port of GCC which uses the DJGPP C library. Since the additions suggested by Nate are for the DJGPP libc docs, I don't see how other GCC users could benefit. ANSI and POSIX standards are already described elsewhere, and the rest is DJGPP-specific. > I don't think there's a problem with using copyrighted references as > *references*. For instance "both Borland and Microsoft say that function > foo() is portable among MS-DOS platforms" so we *tested* it on them and > we think it is too. But if we don't test, then I think it ultimately > just comes down to just copying someone else's work. I don't see how telling that a certain function is available or unavailable in a certain library could be infringement of any copyright. The knowledge that I gathered by being a legitimate user of, say, Borland's products (yes, I *did* pay for it) is AFAIK not subject to any copyright and doesn't require royalties to be payed. If you were thinking that we suggest reverse-engineering commercial libraries, or copying text from them, then you may relax: nobody suggested that, and I think such an effort is too much anyway.