Linux-Development-Sys Digest #344, Volume #8 Wed, 13 Dec 00 03:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Courageous)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Pete Becker)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
linux c++ and thread (Rud)
problems compiling kernel for 586? ("Marty Ross")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Peter Seebach)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Peter Seebach)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (John Hasler)
Re: What is the command to . . . ? (Cliff Sarginson)
Re: changing BASH's path searching (Josef Moellers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:15:56 GMT
>>Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this. If you
>>distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC and linked to
>>the GNU libraries someone may still sue you to force you to disclose
>>your source code as well.
This message contains misconceptions about the copyright laws
as enforced internationally in general and in the United States in
specific. This message also contains misconceptions about the
GPL and the LGPL, the nature of the GPL and LGPL agreements,
and the scope and authority that they have.
C//
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:23:12 -0800
Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Pete Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Technical and quais-legal discussions should be based on facts, not on
> : innuendo. I make no apologies for urging people to get sound legal
> : advice before making business decisions that involve licensing issues.
> : That is simply common sense.
>
> You could probably bring our point across more easily if libstdc++
> weren't in direct competion one of Dinkumware's product: As is, you try
> to scare people away from your competion on rather vague grounds.
No. You are not in a position to make statements about what I intend to
do. You have no knowledge of that.
> Although it is true that handwaving is no legal advice, it is also true
> that the libstdc++ people make sure that their product is applicable to
> commercial application.
>
> IMO other standard library implementations, like the one from
> Dinkumware, also have licenses which are rather vague (eg. it is at
> best unclear whether it is permittable to ship a DLL with the
> Dinkumware library together with a product making use of it; actually,
> it is my understanding that this is not permittable).
Which is why I said that it is important to get sound legal advice in
this area. I don't udnerstand why this is so hard for people to accept.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:23:25 -0800
jbs wrote:
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > Once again: base technical decisions on facts, not on innuendo.
>
> The only one spreading innuendo here is you.
>
> > I make
> > no apologies for urging people to get sound legal advice before making
> > business decisions that involve licensing issues. That is simply common
> > sense.
>
> I wouldn't expect you to apologize. Nevertheless, your use of FUD to
> promote your products is reprehensible.
>
> I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
> products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
> the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
> concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
> invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
> that I would).
I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning of the GNU
licenses, nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
Once again I suggest that you stick to facts, and keep the insults and
innuendos to yourself.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:24:59 -0800
Mike Stump wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
> >by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
> >that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
> >on.
>
> You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
> if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
> can take them at their word they won't sue you. The law is in fact
> immaterial.
That is a business decision, and one that's perfectly legitimate to
make. I have made no statement about that. What I have said is that
basing such a decision on a representation from someone on the internet
that there is no problem is not legally sound. If people want to base
business decisions on shaky legal logic that is their prerogative.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:40:17 +0000
Courageous wrote:
> > >Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this. If you
> > >distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC and linked to
> > >the GNU libraries someone may still sue you to force you to disclose
> > >your source code as well.
>
> This message contains misconceptions about the copyright laws
> as enforced internationally in general and in the United States in specific.
> This message also contains misconceptions about the GPL and the LGPL,
> the nature of the GPL and LGPL agreements,
> and the scope and authority that they have.
Oh, please Counselor, do tell us what these misconceptions are.
------------------------------
From: Rud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux c++ and thread
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:35:51 -0800
I'm writing a server application and I have c++ list for message queue
I have a class for manging the connection
class net_manager
{
var 1;
....
public :
void send_msg();
...............
};
I want to set a condition variable to wake up the thread when a new
message is put in the list
and this is done by
void net_manager::add_msg(block * new_block)
{
mutex.lock(); //mutex lock and unlock are my definition using
mutex_class
out_msg.push_back(new_block);
pthread_cond_signal(&cond);
mutex.unlock();
}
my qestion is now, how do I start the thread that is going to
be wakup when the condition is signal
when that happend I want to call a function
void net_manager::send_msg()
{
do_send(); //that function then go throw the list and send all msg
}
thanks
------------------------------
From: "Marty Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: problems compiling kernel for 586?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:36:03 +0200
Hey again,
In my continuing saga to solve the problem I'm having with "mke2fs", it
turns out that by recompiling my kernel for 386, it APPEARS (I have more
tests to do to confirm this) that the problem goes away.
Are there [m]any known problems/bugs/considerations that go along with
compiling the kernel for 586 (setting the "CONFIG_M586" configuration
option)?
??
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:29:47 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> > I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
> > products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
> > the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
> > concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
> > invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
> > that I would).
>
> I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning of the GNU
> licenses, nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
Wrong. In response to a reply to (misguided) comments by Tisdale, you
said:
"He happens to be right."
In doing so, you adopted his innuendos and misunderstandings as your
own. Of course, most people would reasonably conclude that you did so
deliberately and self-servingly, to promote your own competing products,
although of couse we can't prove this. Still, shame on you.
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:33:03 -0800
Pete Becker wrote:
> What I have said is that
> basing such a decision on a representation from someone on the internet
> that there is no problem is not legally sound.
That's true, but that's hardly what reasonable and intelligent people
are basing their decisions on.
> If people want to base
> business decisions on shaky legal logic that is their prerogative.
There you go again. The logic is not necessarily (or even in this case,
at all) shaky just because it happens to be posted on the Internet.
If you want to claim that someone's legal logic is "shaky" back it up
with hard facts, case law, and citations to recognized authorities.
Otherwise, take your self-promoting FUD and take a hike.
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:42:13 +0000
Pete Becker wrote:
> I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning
> of the GNU licenses,
> nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
> Once again I suggest that you stick to facts
> and keep the insults and innuendoes to yourself.
Hi Pete,
Please don't respond to the troll.
Insults and innuendoes are off-topic in these newsgroups
and so is any response to them.
This is not an appropriate forum for posting personal attacks
or defending yourself against them.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 13 Dec 2000 05:05:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
>if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
>can take them at their word they won't sue you.
Can you? An informal statement that they won't sue and a dollar will
buy you a bag of chips.
>The law is in fact immaterial.
No, it tells you what defenses you will have if they *do* sue, whether
or not they've said they will.
>You are thinking of a different case. The case more like RIPEM, where
>they assert rights that you think no court would uphold. In that
>case, I agree with you.
That, too, is worth considering. You have to recognize that people,
in general, make legal claims that are not well supported. They make
them for a number of reasons, and really, the only thing you can do
is get your own legal council.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 13 Dec 2000 05:08:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There you go again. The logic is not necessarily (or even in this case,
>at all) shaky just because it happens to be posted on the Internet.
True. However, it's not exactly well-supported.
>If you want to claim that someone's legal logic is "shaky" back it up
>with hard facts, case law, and citations to recognized authorities.
If you want to claim that some logic *isn't* shaky, why not have an actual
lawyer come in and give legal advice? :)
Note that merely being logical is not much of a defense in a court system...
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:14:39 GMT
E. Robert Tisdale writes:
> The problem is that ANYONE can sue you for not disclosing source code for
> applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
No. Only the owner of the copyright on the libraries can sue.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What is the command to . . . ?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:32:09 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] posited:
> I am looking for the command that will help me compare two directory
> structures.
>
> I just did a file copy to an NFS drive and I want to make sure that I
> got everything.
>
> I used
> cp -axv /dev /mnt/vol00
> cp -axv /bin /mnt/vol00
> cp -axv/usr /mnt/vol00
> etc . . .
>
> Doing some sampling, it appears that everything copied okay.
>
> What I am looking for is the equivalent to this
> dos command: dir *.* /s
>
> i.e. I am looking for file counts and directory counts as well as
> total sizes.
>
Hey this is Linux. If you saw no complaints then the commands
worked ! Trust me.
Cliff
--
no NAUGHTYSPAM if you email me :)
------------------------------
From: Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: changing BASH's path searching
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:00:47 +0100
Alex Graf wrote (slightly reformatted):
> =
> Josef Moellers wrote:
> >
> > There's more to rpm and friends than just injecting files here and th=
ere
> > into a directory tree, checking dependencies for one and the most
> > important thing: documenting what's installed.
> > Rather than doing a "find / -name command -print" (and going to lunch=
)
> > to see if a command is installed ("Rats, did I install the help files=
> > with them?" followed by another "find" and another lunch break),
> > searching the rpm database to decide whether the package is installed=
> > and if it's the right version is a lot easier.
> =
> But if every package had its own directory, then you don't need to
> search with find, or even look it up in a package database -- all you
> need to do is check if its directory is there or not.
Agreed.
> > Also, removing a package is a lot easier: No leftovers (err ... not f=
rom
> > lunch), no broken dependencies, documented removal.
> And if *every* file for a package were contained in a single directory,=
> docs, libs, global configs, executables & all, then you can be
> absolutely sure there are no leftovers by wiping out the whole
> directory: rm -Rf <pkg-dir>
Yes, but you might break dependencies that way without noting.
> In older debians that I've used, dpkg --purge would often leave files &=
> dirs behind.
It's annoying sometimes. I've seen it with rpm, too.
> As many have pointed out to me, my idea stinks in a networked
> environment with shared directory trees, multiuser, etc. I completly
> agree with all of them. I probably should have clarified that I am
> interested in scaled-down linux for small isolated single-user machines=
> with no knowledgeable sysadmin, only users who want to install new
> software (maybe downloaded from the 'net, maybe from a store). In any
> other role, I agree with everyone that apt is the best way to go.
If software is supposed to be installed in system-wide directories,
users cannot do that.
Besides, systems that are small and isolated now, will be large and
networked in a few year's time.
> > Compared to one \WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory, the scheme with /usr, /opt=
,
> > /var, /etc, /lib sure sounds a little more structured.
> =
> I agree that my statement was too rash!
> OTOH I never suggested that packages should throw files into a common
> SYSTEM directory.
No, that was my personal strike at Winblows.
> > No, I'd rather have a few centralized locations where I (and my shell=
)
> > can look for commands. It saves a lot of directory accesses and speed=
s
> > up command execution considerably. Symbolic links have been mentioned=
> =
> OK, that's very true, there would be too many directory accesses and it=
> would be too slow. How about a $PATH search and *then* a subdirectory
> search?
But that's still a search in a number of directories. You must consider
that searching is an expensive business: As Dijkstra (or Knuth) has
pointed out in another context (bugs): You cannot prove the absence by
searching, you can only prove the existance. Applied here this means
that you will have to COMPLETELY search through all directories NOT
containing the command until you find it. It may be less dramatic in
your scenario because the directories will be much smaller, but still, 5
directories containing 2 commands each are larger than one directory
containing 10 commands.
I have a vintage Unix box (from the mid 80s) where the installer used a
simple tar format. However, they had to include some TOBERUN file which
was executed AFTER the install. Sometimes you have to do commands BEFORE
and AFTER the install and BEFORE and AFTER the uninstall, e.g. to modify
some centralized file when the package is installed and undo that
modification upon uninstalling the package. To me this, the dependency
checking and the documentation issue, are the most valuable aspects of a
formalized packaging scheme.
-- =
Josef M=F6llers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to the
comp.os.linux.development.system newsgroup.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
