Am 2006-07-03 09:04:39, schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient, portable
code
What does it mean for a compiler to produce portable code?
It produce
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2006-07-03 09:04:39, schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient,
portable code
Am 2006-08-18 08:10:27, schrieb John Goerzen:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2006-07-03 09:04:39, schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:35:52PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2006-07-03 09:04:39, schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient,
portable code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:17:20 -0400
Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: openwatcom
Version : I plan to do version 1.4 (or 1.6, if it comes out
soon) Upstream Author : an independent
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient, portable
code
What does it mean for a compiler to produce portable code?
--
One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. -- O.W.
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
* Package name: openwatcom
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient, portable code
What does it mean for a compiler to produce portable code?
Perhaps it is a Java compiler in
Hello,
i did not understand. Are you saying that the compiler?
Openwatcom: open source multi platform c/c++ and fortran compiler.
Url: http://www.openwatcom.org
There that at one,
watcom c: c/c++ compiler
I hope, You don't mix with this.
Regards,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2006-07-02 kello
Le 03-07-2006, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
su, 2006-07-02 kello 18:17 -0400, Jason Spiro kirjoitti:
Description : C/C++ compiler and IDE that produce efficient, portable
code
What does it mean for a compiler to produce portable code?
Good question. I do not have
What does it mean for a compiler to produce portable code?
Good question. I do not have personal experience with this, but I am
told you can write your code once and then recompile it for a wide
variety of platforms
On the website it says it's a cross compiler, that is to say you can
El lunes, 3 de julio de 2006 a las 01:36:12 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribía:
Ok, but it still needs to be modified. Are you suggesting that the
freedom to produce a binary that can't be recompiled by anyone else is a
necessary freedom?
I'd say that the freedom to use the program in any
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:30:25AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
I'd say that the freedom to use the program in any way I see fit is a
necessary freedom.
Sorry, but the criteria for inclusion in main is the DFSG, not whatever
ideas people might have of necessary freedoms :-)
/* Steinar */
--
El lunes, 3 de julio de 2006 a las 09:41:18 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson
escribía:
I'd say that the freedom to use the program in any way I see fit is a
necessary freedom.
Sorry, but the criteria for inclusion in main is the DFSG, not whatever
ideas people might have of necessary freedoms
On Jul 03, Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not the only criteria. People are very inventive when it comes to creating
new software licenses with new restrictions which fit the letter of the DFSG
because, hey, the DFSG say nothing about licenses that make you cut off a
part of your own
El lunes, 3 de julio de 2006 a las 10:06:56 +0200, Marco d'Itri escribía:
It's this attitude of DFSG is not restrictive enough, let's invent a
few new restrictions which we like that is screwing Debian (and our
users).
You've got it backwards.
--
Jacobo Tarrío |
From DFSG FAQ Draft ( http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html ):
Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's
standards?
A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate
our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if
On Jul 03, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From DFSG FAQ Draft ( http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html ):
This document mostly represents the opinion of the DFSG revisionists,
so it's hardly a surprise that supports the we decide what is non-free
school of tought.
--
ciao,
Marco
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From DFSG FAQ Draft ( http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html ):
This document mostly represents the opinion of the DFSG revisionists,
so it's hardly a surprise that supports the we decide what is non-free
school of
Le 03-07-2006, Sebastian Harl [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On the website it says it's a cross compiler, that is to say you can produce
code for different target platforms on one host platform.
Maybe you should change the description to something like C/C++ cross
compilers and IDE. Saying
On Jul 03, Roberto Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the DFSG was written by people. Additionally, most software
licenses are written by people. It is no surprise that deciding which
licenses actually comply with the DFSG is a process which requires
people to make the decision.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Bullshit. The only criteria for defining freedom for the purposes of
Debian *is* the DFSG.
Under a strict reading of the DFSG, I'm not sure how a license that
prohibits running the code would fail.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
From DFSG FAQ Draft ( http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html ):
This document mostly represents the opinion of the DFSG revisionists,
so it's hardly a surprise that supports the we decide what is non-free
school of tought (sic).
I'm the primary
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:17:20PM -0400, Jason Spiro wrote:
* Package name: openwatcom
* License : Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 (it is
OSI-approved)
Oops... it looks like OSI smoked something especially bad this time,
I'm afraid. This license looks like someone took his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:17:20PM -0400, Jason Spiro wrote:
[snip]
the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece
of software (thus not Personal Use), you need to make the
source of openwatcom publicly
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece of
software (thus not Personal Use), you need to make the source of
openwatcom publicly available for 12 months.
What?
You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:10:34AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece of
software (thus not Personal Use), you need to make the source of
openwatcom publicly available for 12 months.
What?
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:50:07PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 06:17:20PM -0400, Jason Spiro wrote:
[snip]
the moment you use openwatcom to compile any work-related piece
of software (thus not
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# 1.4 Deploy means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code
# other than for Your internal research and development (RD) and/or
# Personal Use, and includes without limitation, any and all internal
# use or distribution of Covered Code within Your
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not limited to modified versions
Yes it is. In fact, it seems to be limited to the modifications
themselves, rather than an entire modified source tree.
it's for a period of time far exceeding that of the distribution.
Like Mozilla.
--
Matthew
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok, but it still needs to be modified. Are you suggesting that the
freedom to produce a binary that can't be recompiled by anyone else is a
necessary freedom?
I haven't read the license, and I suggest asking on -legal if you want a
full analysis, but the general
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:36:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use, like, for example, compile a piece of software. You don't
need to distribute openwatcom to anyone to fall within this clause.
Ok, but it still needs to be modified. Are you
31 matches
Mail list logo
