[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that
case; only dynamically.
No, that's the GPL. The LGPL explicitely permits static links to
the library for all applications.
Hi!
31-Июл-2006 17:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Imre Leber) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
IL But still it would have been nice to have this kind of compiler when I was
IL searching for one before I started writing on FreeDOS. I think this compiler
IL might even be better than the one I
Hi!
31-Июл-2006 15:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alain M.) wrote to
freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net:
The problem may then be that openwatcom is not GPL licensed. And it is still
controlled by a big company that would most likely not want to listen to
issues from the FreeDOS project.
AM In my
GPL also free for _any_ use (binaries). And, for example, you may
compile commercial apps by GCC.
BUT IIRC if you compile commercial apps with GCC and don't want to
make source available, you have to dynamically link (not possible
under DOS except with DJGPP)
Alain M. wrote:
Arkady V.Belousov escreveu:
GPL also free for _any_ use (binaries). And, for example, you may
compile commercial apps by GCC.
That is what the comercial says. the hard reality is that you have
problems with the lib which cannot be used, with GCC you have worse
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that
case; only dynamically.
Mark
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Mark Bailey escreveu:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
There is nowhere to be seen any licence for glibc, not even in it's
site. But even in LGPL it is a problem: you have to use the systems's
version and it brings many compatibility problems
Alain
Blair Campbell wrote:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
But a commercial app still cannot _statically_ link to it in that
case; only dynamically.
Specifically, the GNU LGPL says this in its preamble:
For example, [..] If you link other code
Alain M. wrote:
Mark Bailey escreveu:
Isn't glibc licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL) for this very reason?
There is nowhere to be seen any licence for glibc, not even in it's
site. But even in LGPL it is a problem: you have to use the systems's
version and it brings many
I found it at:
http://www.desmet-c.com/
The Compiler has been placed under the GNU GPL, and the library has been
placed under the GNU LGPL.
I'm wondering if anyone in the FreeDOS project is considering adopting it for
(really) small distributions?
Thanks
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton
, July 31, 2006 10:28 AM
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Freedos-devel] DeSmet C compiler available under GPL
I found it at:
http://www.desmet-c.com/
The Compiler has been placed under the GNU GPL, and the library has been
placed under the GNU LGPL.
I'm wondering if anyone
Does openwatcom support overlays?
Yes.
Maybe we should keep this around.
I would definitely be interested in its compatibility with the Borland
family of compilers, as this could be improved in OpenWatcom. BTW,
OpenWatcom is also a commercial-quality 16-bit compiler :-).
--
Fall is my
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 07:06 PM
To: freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] DeSmet C compiler available under GPL
Does openwatcom support overlays?
Yes.
Maybe we should keep this around.
I would definitely be interested in its
At 10:06 AM 7/31/2006, Blair Campbell wrote:
Maybe we should keep this around.
I would definitely be interested in its compatibility with the Borland
family of compilers, as this could be improved in OpenWatcom. BTW,
OpenWatcom is also a commercial-quality 16-bit compiler :-).
I did use
Imre Leber escreveu:
The problem may then be that openwatcom is not GPL licensed. And it is still
controlled by a big company that would most likely not want to listen to
issues from the FreeDOS project.
In my understanding, OW has a *better* licence than GPL, it is free for
comercial
before I started writing on FreeDOS. I think this compiler might even be
better than the one I am currently using (turbo C++ 1.01).
Well, I did some testing and its C library is severly limited and
non-standard, and the code it produces seems much larger than Turbo
C[++] (4kb for a simple void
16 matches
Mail list logo
