Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 11:51:59 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com> To: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> Cc: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, nate@trout.sri.mt.net, hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user Message-ID: <199506101852.LAA28328@netcom11.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Jun 95 10:57:59 PDT." <199506101757.KAA06064@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> A simple reading of the license would show you that lcc is MORE restrictive
> than gcc.
``Different'' restrictions, Sean, not MORE restrictive. See below.
> Yeah, it's smaller, and, yeah, it compiles faster. And, yeah, it generates
> worse code. And, yeah, it's got a lint version which would be useful -- but
> I won't touch it.
Right. It is also easier to modify, easier add new backends
for, and by far easier to understand than gcc. For a two
person effort it is an excellent compiler. It is far from
perfect and it can certainly use quite a few additional
optimizations.
> Unless they've changed the license recently, which I suspect they haven't,
> you don't want to use lcc at all. In particular, Walnut Creek CD-ROM
> (or any other entity that sells FreeBSD, either as itself, or just on media)
> doesn't want to get into that legal mess.
Can't speak for WC and others but I believe the present
copyright allows them distributing lcc. See below. I also
think that anyone who stays away from lcc misses out on an
excellent compiler. The present license is certainly good
enough for me.
> lcc is a *fine* instructional compiler, and you can go out and buy a copy of
> the LCC Book (something about "Compiler Design," I think). But don't think
> that it's a replacement for gcc.
It is a fine compiler (adding instructional sounds like a put
down to me). It is not a replacement for gcc if you are using
gcc's extensions. For *BSD at the very least we need support
for long long which some of us are in the process of adding.
When lcc 3 first came out I complained about the contradictory
copyright and I queried Dave Hanson (one of the authors) on
this. I asked
... It is not clear to me if one can use lcc, for
example, as part of NetBSD or FreeBSD (two free variants of
BSD unix). While one can get sources to either OS and
associated user programs, there are people contemplating (or
already) selling them.
He wrote back (among other things)
including lcc without modification in another distribution is OK.
The COPYRIGHT file now says (in part)
lcc is available free for your personal research and instructional use
under the `fair use' provisions of the copyright law. You may,
however, redistribute the lcc in whole or in part provided you
acknowledge its source and include this COPYRIGHT file.
It is still not as free as software under BSD style copyright.
Under the terms of the COPYRIGHT you can create a compiler
for, say, Intel 4004, and sell the 4004 code generator and
give away lcc (after acknowledging its use) but you can't, for
example create a c++ compiler using it without negotiating with
the authors. The latter restriction is a good thing IMHO:-)
Anyway, check it out for yourself. Don't just rely on my or
Sean's comments.
--bakul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506101852.LAA28328>