Re: [TCLUG:150] RE: X11Amp version 0.7

[James Hall <jhall1@isd.net>]

(the original post)
> >> have those people finally come to their senses, and relased the source? or
> >> do we still have to deal with their bad attitude
> >
> > Why does not wanting to release their source create a "bad attitude"?
[..]
> > Just because someone writes an app for Linux doesn't *require* them to
> > release the source code.  I don't know where this mind-set got started.
> > For example, take commercial software: commercial apps will really lend
> > to the flexibility and visibility of Linux.  I would love to see more
> > commercial apps run on Linux.  Yet you'll never see a commercial app
> > that will also release its source code.  Applixware, for one, will
> > probably never release its source code, yet it is a fine office package.

(the reply)
> the reason i have been so harsh with them is because of the way they worded
> thier statement that they would not release source (first annoucement)

I don't have the benefit of history in this case.  What is the X11Amp
project saying in their current announcements that draw your fire?

> i belive the reason for no open source in the dos word is, what's the point?
> dos only runs on one platform, and if you want a compiler, it cost a fair
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ammount of money.  not to mention the lack of compiler standards.  I saw many
> apps that said.. "hey, if you want the source.. email me"

Actually, the FreeDOS Kernel started out on the M68k,  but that's
nitpicking.  :)

> linux/unix on the other hand, is lost without the gcc compiler, every app you
> have has been at one time compiled with the gcc compiler,  it's free, and is
> default installed by many distributions.  I have said many times "oh my god,
> you don't have gcc"  it's standard, just about every platform uses gcc, or has
> it as an option, and the best way to distribute cross-platform apps is to use
> gcc.

And in what way does this *require* X11Amp to release their source
code?  Just because gcc is available for free does not mean X11Amp must
become an open-source project.  Nothing in the GNU GPL (which applies to
gcc) says that programs that use GNU software as development *tools*
(I'm not talking about using source code) must also be distributed under
the GPL.  That would be the same as saying that if I write a document
using Word '97, it is instantly owned by Microsoft.


--Jim Hall
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer