SEO

Dear all,

i am C/C++ developer and having big problem with customers
using our C++ programs. Sofar we use GCC on different platforms
and have to use LGPL shared libraries. Because of the libraries mess
and
mismatch one has to distribute complete gcc lib chain within a
product.
Compiling comercial products statically and selling them is prohibited
due to
GPL/LGPL - the only possibility is to distribute libstdc++,libgcc...
with the libs source code and link everything dynamically.

I wonder if there is BSD licensed compiler that can be used for
commercial
purpose. Would be nice to find good replacement for GNU C/C++
libs/compiler.

Thanks for any ideas.

linux62i@yahoo.com (Vlad) writes:

> I wonder if there is BSD licensed compiler that can be used for
> commercial purpose. Would be nice to find good replacement for GNU
> C/C++ libs/compiler.

Well, there is a project to produce one, at least - TenDRA.

In ports as /usr/ports/lang/tendra/, it lives at http://www.tendra.org/.
I'm not sure how far along they are feature wise though.

--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
"First, we kill all the spammers" The Usenet Bard, "Twice-forwarded tales"

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Vlad wrote:

> i am C/C++ developer and having big problem with customers
> using our C++ programs. Sofar we use GCC on different platforms
> and have to use LGPL shared libraries. Because of the libraries mess
> and
> mismatch one has to distribute complete gcc lib chain within a
> product.
> Compiling comercial products statically and selling them is prohibited
> due to
> GPL/LGPL - the only possibility is to distribute libstdc++,libgcc...
> with the libs source code and link everything dynamically.

It's not open source (at least, not yet), but SUn's compiler are great.
The potential downside is that they're Solaris based (which is now free).

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Vlad <linux62i@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i am C/C++ developer and having big problem with customers using our
> C++ programs. Sofar we use GCC on different platforms and have to use
> LGPL shared libraries. Because of the libraries mess and mismatch one
> has to distribute complete gcc lib chain within a product.

Are you talking about compilers? Or libraries? You mention compilers,
but your gripe seems to be with the libraries.

There's nothing that says you have to use L?GPL'd libs with gcc. My
former employer, who not only had no intention of disclosing their
source but was also prohibited by regulations from releasing source,
used gcc exclusively for one particular platform. We used no L?GPL'd
libs.

> Compiling comercial products statically and selling them is
> prohibited due to GPL/LGPL - the only possibility is to distribute
> libstdc++,libgcc... with the libs source code and link everything
> dynamically.

The GPL licenses do not specify that you must include a CD-ROM
containing source with the product at time of delivery, only that you
make it available to customers.

> I wonder if there is BSD licensed compiler that can be used for
> commercial purpose. Would be nice to find good replacement for GNU
> C/C++ libs/compiler.

Again, are we talking about libs? or compilers?

Nevertheless, having BSD-licensed libraries available to use with any
compiler is an excellent idea.

Tim Hammerquist

In comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Vlad wrote:

> > i am C/C++ developer and having big problem with customers
> > using our C++ programs. Sofar we use GCC on different platforms
> > and have to use LGPL shared libraries. Because of the libraries mess
> > and
> > mismatch one has to distribute complete gcc lib chain within a
> > product.
> > Compiling comercial products statically and selling them is prohibited
> > due to
> > GPL/LGPL - the only possibility is to distribute libstdc++,libgcc...
> > with the libs source code and link everything dynamically.

> It's not open source (at least, not yet), but SUn's compiler are great.
> The potential downside is that they're Solaris based (which is now free).

Are you talking about the CDDL? Have you read it?

3. Distribution Obligations.

3.1. Availability of Source Code.

Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form
and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms
of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every
copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute
or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such
Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such
Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or
through a medium customarily used for software exchange.

How is that different from the LGPL? In fact, the CDDL is worse than the
LGPL because you can lose your license:

6. TERMINATION

6.2. If You assert a patent infringement claim (excluding
declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a
Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You
assert such claim is referred to as "Participant") alleging that the
Participant Software (meaning the Contributor Version where the
Participant is a Contributor or the Original Software where the
Participant is the Initial Developer) directly or indirectly
infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted directly or
indirectly to You by such Participant, the Initial Developer (if the
Initial Developer is not the Participant) and all Contributors under
Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice
from Participant terminate prospectively and automatically at the
expiration of such 60 day notice period, unless if within such 60
day period You withdraw Your claim with respect to the Participant
Software against such Participant either unilaterally or pursuant to
a written agreement with Participant

Source: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, William Ahern wrote:

> > It's not open source (at least, not yet), but SUn's compiler are great.
> > The potential downside is that they're Solaris based (which is now free).
>
> Are you talking about the CDDL? Have you read it?

How on Earth could you infer that I was?! But yes, I've read the CDDL.
In fact, as a member of the open source pilot, I was one of the people
outside of SUn who was in a position give them feedback about it.

This is a discussion about the availability of compilers, not licenses.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, William Ahern wrote:

> > > It's not open source (at least, not yet), but SUn's compiler are great.
> > > The potential downside is that they're Solaris based (which is now free).
> >
> > Are you talking about the CDDL? Have you read it?

> How on Earth could you infer that I was?! But yes, I've read the CDDL.
> In fact, as a member of the open source pilot, I was one of the people
> outside of SUn who was in a position give them feedback about it.
>
> This is a discussion about the availability of compilers, not licenses.

I think what the discussion was about is not exactly agreed upon. I was
speaking to the OP wishing to ship with different libraries.

In any event, I suppose statically linking w/ LGPL libraries was the real
issue and I missed the boat.

Hello,

Since I have more or less the same problem I already tried to research a
little on it. I also have C++ code which must be supplied in libraries and
compiled at end-user site and since I also choosed to use libstdc++ I'm also
facing the same as you.

What I did find out is that there is a huge problem with binary
incompatibility in gcc between anything but minor revisions. Additionally
the lack of compatibility in C++ libraries doesn't help on the case either.
What strikes me is that if you code your program in C then you don't have
all these problems (or atleast fewer).
I'm just surprised that a language beeing as old as C++ still gives that
many problems.

But it's not a new problem ... so why havn't someone thought of fixing it
before? I assume somewhere deep on the net there must be someone who wrote
aproaches for best practice of how to avoid these problems.

The ultimate goal is naturally to compile the C++ code with a C frontend and
absolutely no references to external C++ code. This would solve atleast one
problem.
However the answer of how to deploy software is still to be found. Because
as you discovered theres just too many posibilities for various
distributions to be able to support them all.

But honestly theres so many problem. I was looking at vmware and then it
struck me that to support "linux" they released almost 20 unique versions of
their software to ensure it works. Wheres the compatibility in that? The
thing I didn't understand yet is why they had to do it.
See their list at
http://www.vmware.com/products/deskt...s.html#sysreqs

-- John

In article <8771330c.0502170525.4540cfa4@posting.google.com >,
linux62i@yahoo.com (Vlad) wrote:

> Compiling comercial products statically and selling them is prohibited
> due to
> GPL/LGPL - the only possibility is to distribute libstdc++,libgcc...
> with the libs source code and link everything dynamically.

Doesn't appear to be the case with libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstd...o/license.html
the above url seems to indicate that you can statically link libstdc++
without requiring to release your source.
It also highlights that libstdc++ v3 does not use the LGPL, it is the
GPL with a runtime exception.
with C libs you could supply the object files to allow relinking ...

R.

> What I did find out is that there is a huge problem with binary
> incompatibility in gcc between anything but minor revisions. Additionally
> the lack of compatibility in C++ libraries doesn't help on the case either.
> What strikes me is that if you code your program in C then you don't have
> all these problems (or atleast fewer).

"How to mix C and C++"
http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/~kueh...c-and-cpp.html


> I'm just surprised that a language beeing as old as C++ still gives that
> many problems.
>
> But it's not a new problem ... so why havn't someone thought of fixing it
> before? I assume somewhere deep on the net there must be someone who wrote
> aproaches for best practice of how to avoid these problems.

Would you like to read the chapters "7 ABI" and "8 Objects Across Broders" of the book
"Imperfect C++" (ISBN 0-321-22877-4) by Matthew Wilson?
http://imperfectcplusplus.com/

Regards,
Markus