A good compiler

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

jacob navia said:



You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

Correct. He can however quite rightly criticise others for criticising him
when he believes he doesn't deserve it, and use the fact (not criticism)
that the complaints were directed at him alone as support for why he
doesn't deserve it.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

And of course, the response "Microsoft" was offered up by the Microsoft
sales department, right?

Oh... hmm... no, doesn't seem to be. So someone mentioning MS's compiler
was *not* (presumably) in a position to make financial gains by their
recommendations. You, by contrast, were - for them, it was a
recommendation, for you it's a sales pitch.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

LCC-win is free to download and use.

Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Well, not really. It's about persistent off-topic posts. The fact
that it's commercial isn't really relevant; the posts in question
would be just as inappropriate if lcc-win32 were open-source and
public-domain.

Okay, perhaps, but it is particularly galling to have commercial
for-profit stuff flogged by its author who is apparently too slimy to use
proper advertising channels.

(And, strictly speaking, it's not spam; spam is
identical articles cross-posted or multi-posted to multiple
newsgroups.)

Depends on definitions, I guess; many groups regard *any* unsolicited
commercial input as spam, others regard it that way if the one so doing
has a financial interest, others if it happens repeatedly. Navia falls
under all three categories, so I brand his noise "spam".

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

And of course, the response "Microsoft" was offered up by the Microsoft
sales department, right?

Oh... hmm... no, doesn't seem to be. So someone mentioning MS's compiler
was *not* (presumably) in a position to make financial gains by their
recommendations. You, by contrast, were - for them, it was a
recommendation, for you it's a sales pitch.

I recommended MS VC and I sell commercial compilers.

The MSVC 2005 Express is FREE to download and use for AFAIK non
commercial apps. Just like LCC-Win32

I did not recommend LCC-win32 but I don't understand all these
complaints about the author.

 

[Chris Hills]

Say my company wants me to write a short C
program to convert some legacy files
from old format to new format.

If I donwload Fedoca Core and install it on my company computer.
Then I download and use gcc to compile and run the C program.
That's legal.

If I download and use lcc-win to compile and run my C program
without paying Jacob first, then I've broken the law.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between
the licenses of gcc/linux/freebsd/apache...
versus the license by Jacob Nadia

Is this clear enough?

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it on without disclosing
my modified source. Is that clear enough?

Both Lcc-win and Gcc have restrictive licenses as does the MS VC-2005
Express I recommended. (BTW I sell compilers)

I did not recommend either Gcc or LCC-win32 however I can see no
objection to others recommending these free compilers which also have
license restrictions.

 

[Chris Hills]

Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy of
the source that's OK right?

Why is no one complaining bitterly that I recommended MS VC 2005 Express
which is also free to download and use for non-commercial apps?

ALL these tools have licences which are restrictive in one way or
another.

 

[JT]

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it
on without disclosing my modified source.
Is that clear enough?
...
(BTW I sell compilers)

You never said that in this thread.
Now your point is finally clear.

Both Lcc-win and Gcc have restrictive licenses

But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

 

[JT]

ALL these tools have licences which are restrictive
in one way or another.

"One way or another" is broad a stroke.
In corporate settings, the details are everything.

lcc-win32 is at a very extreme end of the spectrum.

gcc is at another very extreme end of the spectrum.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Chris Hills wrote, On 30/07/07 17:00:

LCC-win is free to download and use. Like Fedora it has a license

show me the Fedora I can use, adapt and sell on without disclosing the
source?

Show me the lcc-win32 I can download, use to build SW, and sell the
built SW. I can do that with Fedora.

Show me the RedHat share holders or employees pushing RedHat here.

Note I have no objection to Jacob suggesting lcc-win32 in response to a
request for suggestions for Windows C compilers. I object to a blanket
statement it is free, and I object to Jacob not stating that it is his
product when suggesting it.

 

[Chris Hills]

You never said that in this thread.

It wasn't relevant

Now your point is finally clear.

How so? I recommended a free compiler.

But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless you
have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.

 

[Chris Hills]

"One way or another" is broad a stroke.
In corporate settings, the details are everything.

lcc-win32 is at a very extreme end of the spectrum.

gcc is at another very extreme end of the spectrum.

Neither are at the extreme end. If the were they would not be at
diametric opposite ends of the same line.

 

[Keith Thompson]

LCC-win is free to download and use. Like Fedora it has a license

show me the Fedora I can use, adapt and sell on without disclosing the
source?

Surely even you can understand that this discussion should be
happening in a forum other than comp.lang.c (assuming it needs to
happen at all).

 

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia said:


You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

I'm afraid he can. If he believes that promoting commercial or
semi-commercial compilers here is perfectly appropriate, then he has
no obligation to complain that anything else is off-topic, and he can
consistently complain both that his own advertisements are being
criticized inappropriately, and that the criticism is being applied
inconistently.

I believe his position is incorrect, but it's at least potentially
consistent.

And again, I suggest that any criticism of jacob's posts (or of anyone
else's) be reserved for direct responses to those posts. This
meta-discussion is a waste of time and bandwidth, not least because
it's become too difficult to be clear about just what behavior is
being criticized.

 

[JT]

No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless you
have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.

Now you've changed your discussion
to complain about how GPL software in general
limits people.

Empirical evidence is not needed,
because the people using gcc to make a compiler
is STRICTLY a subset of the people using gcc AT ALL.

gcc disallows you to modify it then distribute without df.
gcc allows you to use it to compile commerical code of your own.

lcc-win32 disallows either

(df = "disclosure and/or fee")

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless
you have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.

Oh, now reading the GPL license is "empirical evidence"?

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy
of the source that's OK right?

As a matter of fact, YES. What you can't do is supply the revised
gcc elsewhere without releasing your source modifications. Your
internal use of it is up to you. Do read the GPL license some day.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it on without disclosing
my modified source. Is that clear enough?

Clear but irrelevant. Kindly show where gcc requires you to buy a
for-money copy in order to write your software, commercially or otherwise.
Oh, right, it doesn't. lcc does. Thus when discussing either here, lcc
is a commercial venture and should be flogged in proper arenas, whereas
gcc isn't.

One might note that in some other cases - VC Express for example - the
mentioning of it by someone such as, oh, Malcolm might not be a problem,
whereas an MS employee mentioning it might gain some negative feedback -
this is *not* an advertising medium, so discussing the products you expect
to make a profit from, i.e. advertising, should be done elsewhere.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy of
the source that's OK right?
Nope.

Why is no one complaining bitterly that I recommended MS VC 2005 Express
which is also free to download and use for non-commercial apps?

Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it on without disclosing
my modified source. Is that clear enough?

Clear but irrelevant.

NO at all the both have restrictive but different licenses.

Kindly show where gcc requires you to buy a
for-money copy in order to write your software, commercially or otherwise.
Oh, right, it doesn't. lcc does.

Clear but irrelevant.

You want to pick and choose the clauses in the licenses you wish to
argue. If you can then so can I.

One might note that in some other cases - VC Express for example - the
mentioning of it by someone such as, oh, Malcolm might not be a problem,

Why? I mentioned it and I sell compilers.

whereas an MS employee mentioning it might gain some negative feedback -

And anyone involved in GCC might also if they mention GCC... that is
anyone who is involved at all including writing it, or libraries or
support utilities or IDE etc They have as much of a vested interest as
an employee.

this is *not* an advertising medium, so discussing the products you expect
to make a profit from, i.e. advertising, should be done elsewhere.

Jacob is pushing his FREE version of his compiler..... Just like Gcc
you can buy versions of both LCc and Gcc....

You are equivocating but like most FOSS devotees are blind to a balanced
argument.