Andrew Halliwell wrote:
Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which is complete, 100% bullshit. You don't control "commercial
compilers" so how do know?
So... You're now claiming that you can re-distribute a commercial compiler?
Do you KNOW what software piracy is?
Do you know what a contract to distribute is?
Do you what the first sale doctrine is?
It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL
source code with.
With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
the privilage.
With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission
from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for
the privilege.
So? Reversing what I said doesn't make it any less true.
With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
you bound by the GPL yourself.
By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.
By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie?
No, look it up.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
