From: Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish DOT software AT gmx DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:39:53 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <84e9ll$gku$1@news02.btx.dtag.de>
References: <B0000025649 AT nordhorn DOT de> <84dem1$b2a$1 AT news02 DOT btx DOT dtag DOT de> <LUwa4.3016$wd2 DOT 66117 AT dfiatx1-snr1 DOT gtei DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news02.btx.dtag.de 946514421 17054 777000109768-0001 991230 00:40:21
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT t-online DOT de
X-Sender: 777000109768-0001 AT t-dialin DOT net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/16.534
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"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.