Rick R wrote:
The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters
(just those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about
machine generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that
the dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked.
Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the
application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it
for.
How exactly will you make your money, then?
When people say, You can't make commercial software with GPL code,
they don't mean it's not legally
John A. De Goes wrote:
Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the
application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling it for.
How exactly will you make your money, then?
Ask RedHat how they make money from RHEL while Oracle and CentOS are
exact copies
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
Go ahead sell your GPL application. I'll get your code, build the
application, and sell it for less than half of what you're selling
it for.
I don't think you can go below 0.79 in the Apple store, and I guess
you'll have a hard time convincing
Like I said, go ahead and try that with an iPhone application.
If the iPhone app is so buggy or complicated so as to require support,
no one will buy it. If it's not, I'll make all the money by selling it
for half the price you sell it for.
In any case, the examples you mention involve
Again, go ahead and write your GPL app -- i.e. put your money where
your mouth is. After you spend a year developing some cool app, I'll
take your code and sell it -- maybe under a different name, with
different screenshots, and a different description. Or maybe I'll just
list it in the
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net writes:
In any case, the examples you mention involve companies selling the
labors of others.
...like the original poster wanted to, by linking to GCC and sell it
as part of his proprietary product? The difference is that Red Hat et
al benefit from the labor
John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
You simply can't make a living selling GPL software. If the
software's complicated enough and you know your way around it, then
you can sell support maintenance. However, those conditions doesn't
apply to consumer software, because consumers don't want
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0400, Rick R wrote:
The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just
those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine
generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the
dependencies of JHC
Correct. My point was only in the case that it would need to statically link
to a GPL'd lib (which I'm not sure if such a case exists)
If the gcc license suddenly decided to claim compiled items as derivative
works, the IT world as we know it would end.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John
2009/3/24 Rick R rick.richard...@gmail.com
Correct. My point was only in the case that it would need to statically
link to a GPL'd lib (which I'm not sure if such a case exists)
If the gcc license suddenly decided to claim compiled items as derivative
works, the IT world as we know it would
Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
3) Personally, I'd love to see ghc on iPhone. It could even persuade me
to upgrade.
See the GHC-on-ARM page[1] for my work on it last summer, among others'.
GHC is tough to port because bootstrapping to new architectures has been
broken for a long time, since soon
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:41:04PM -0400, Braden Shepherdson wrote:
The good news is that jhc's portable C code works perfectly well -- but
of course that is simply running precompiled Haskell apps and not a
compiler or interpreter running on the device. Since jhc is not
self-hosting
This is solely the reason for my interest in JHC.
The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just
those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine
generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the
dependencies of JHC are all
14 matches
Mail list logo
