I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).
Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
Although they should be available according to GPL they are not.
Give QSSL lawyers a call.
“Dan Haynes” <haynesd@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:39B98757.2878391B@ibm.net…
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet
binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
Well, since it’s unlikely they would honor their customer licensing any more
than they would honor the GPL, I guess that’s something else to consider in
evaluating the systems. This is a big score in favor of Windows CE.
I dislike the GPL and I don’t like the idea of using GNU software in
general… but it’s the way FSF wants to do it and the GPL is straightforward
and it seems exceptionally dishonest to willingly violate it.
I assume the folks at FSF are aware of this?
Thanks,
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:
Although they should be available according to GPL they are not.
Give QSSL lawyers a call.“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39B98757.2878391B@ibm.net> …
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet
binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
“Dan Haynes” <haynesd@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:39BB1839.99EA1138@ibm.net…
Well, since it’s unlikely they would honor their customer licensing any
more
than they would honor the GPL, I guess that’s something else to consider
in
evaluating the systems. This is a big score in favor of Windows CE.
I think it’s a question of resource, QSSL staff is very busy at the moment
and I think they just haven’t allocated resources to package it all. I have
heard
they will make their CVS tree available, but that takes time.
QSSL is trying very hard to NOT rely on GPL on the library side.
I don’t see why it’s a big score in favor of WinCE, please elaborate.
I dislike the GPL and I don’t like the idea of using GNU software in
general… but it’s the way FSF wants to do it and the GPL is
straightforward
and it seems exceptionally dishonest to willingly violate it.
They are not violating it, I thing they just haven’t go around to release
it. And I’d agree with them. If people would want access to it to
fix some specific stuff then I’d say QSSL should raise the priority
of this issue. But if it just out of curiousity, I’d say QSSL should
not hury.
I assume the folks at FSF are aware of this?
I said “contact their lawyers” as a joke, mainly to point out the fact that
at QSSL lawyers are having a more important role now then in the past.
I didn’t mean to say they are defying the GPL license. Actually in
some people opinion they (lawyers) are taking the GPL license too seriously.
It seems the lawyers interpratation of the GPL license is different
then the interpretation of the community in general. But that’s off topic,
this is a technical forum, sorry I even raise the issue.
Thanks,
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:Although they should be available according to GPL they are not.
Give QSSL lawyers a call.“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39B98757.2878391B@ibm.net> …
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet
binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:
“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39BB1839.99EA1138@ibm.net> …
Well, since it’s unlikely they would honor their customer licensing any
more
than they would honor the GPL, I guess that’s something else to consider
in
evaluating the systems. This is a big score in favor of Windows CE.I think it’s a question of resource, QSSL staff is very busy at the moment
and I think they just haven’t allocated resources to package it all. I have
heard
they will make their CVS tree available, but that takes time.QSSL is trying very hard to NOT rely on GPL on the library side.
I don’t see why it’s a big score in favor of WinCE, please elaborate.
Well, I’m not fond of the GNU tool chain in the first place, having been using
it for cross development to m68k platforms for a couple of years. The haphazard
way the various components are tested and updated is frustrating at best. The
GNU mindset/philosophy clashes at a fundamental level with the concept of
reliable software development. Also the code produced by the GNU compiler for
the 68k (GNUPro) is pretty sad for a embedded system usage. Tasking, Sierra and
a lot of other compilers I’ve worked with did a much better job since they
weren’t trying to target every CPU on the planet. I’m wary of the size of the
x86 code.
Anyway, it would be a good reason to use Windows CE, mainly because it gets us
away from using “free” software (to me, “free” software is the stuff that you
pay for after you use, as opposed to commercial software that you pay for before
you use it).
In other words a philosophy thing rather than a technical thing.
I dislike the GPL and I don’t like the idea of using GNU software in
general… but it’s the way FSF wants to do it and the GPL is
straightforward
and it seems exceptionally dishonest to willingly violate it.They are not violating it, I thing they just haven’t go around to release
it. And I’d agree with them. If people would want access to it to
fix some specific stuff then I’d say QSSL should raise the priority
of this issue. But if it just out of curiousity, I’d say QSSL should
not hury.
My understanding is that if they make the binary available, they have to make
the sources available. The GPL makes no exceptions regarding why you want the
source code (curiosity or bug fixes) - if you’re delivering software that uses
GNU sources, you’re supposed to make the sources available. The GPL also
doesn’t say it has to be clean or neat either… just that you make them
available. One would hope that QSSL does as professional a job on the compiler
sources as they obviously do on the operating system, in which case the only
issue would seem to be posting the tar file on an ftp site.
I assume the folks at FSF are aware of this?
I said “contact their lawyers” as a joke, mainly to point out the fact that
at QSSL lawyers are having a more important role now then in the past.
I didn’t mean to say they are defying the GPL license. Actually in
some people opinion they (lawyers) are taking the GPL license too seriously.It seems the lawyers interpratation of the GPL license is different
then the interpretation of the community in general. But that’s off topic,
this is a technical forum, sorry I even raise the issue.
Well it still seems fishy to me that there are executables and no source code.
It’s not like they have to do anything fancy, just tar the thing as it sits and
post it somewhere. Even setting up a CVS server is pretty trivial. In my opinion
if they saved on resources by using free software then they should expect to
spend at least some of those saved resources on putting up the sources.
I’m not at all excited about using QNX to host the development as well - that’s
a pretty crude approach, so I’d really like to get my hands on an NT hosted
cross compiler that could target QNX and/or Neutrino so I can make some more
informed recommendations.
Thanks for the info!
Regards,
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:
Although they should be available according to GPL they are not.
Give QSSL lawyers a call.“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39B98757.2878391B@ibm.net> …
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet
binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:
“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39BB1839.99EA1138@ibm.net> …
Well, since it’s unlikely they would honor their customer licensing any
more
than they would honor the GPL, I guess that’s something else to consider
in
evaluating the systems. This is a big score in favor of Windows CE.I think it’s a question of resource, QSSL staff is very busy at the moment
and I think they just haven’t allocated resources to package it all. I have
heard
they will make their CVS tree available, but that takes time.QSSL is trying very hard to NOT rely on GPL on the library side.
I don’t see why it’s a big score in favor of WinCE, please elaborate.
Well, I’m not fond of the GNU tool chain in the first place, having been using
it for cross development to m68k platforms for a couple of years. The haphazard
way the various components are tested and updated is frustrating at best. The
GNU mindset/philosophy clashes at a fundamental level with the concept of
reliable software development. Also the code produced by the GNU compiler for
the 68k (GNUPro) is pretty sad for a embedded system usage. Tasking, Sierra and
a lot of other compilers I’ve worked with did a much better job since they
weren’t trying to target every CPU on the planet. I’m wary of the size of the
x86 code.
Anyway, it would be a good reason to use Windows CE, mainly because it gets us
away from using “free” software (to me, “free” software is the stuff that you
pay for after you use, as opposed to commercial software that you pay for before
you use it).
In other words a philosophy thing rather than a technical thing.
I dislike the GPL and I don’t like the idea of using GNU software in
general… but it’s the way FSF wants to do it and the GPL is
straightforward
and it seems exceptionally dishonest to willingly violate it.They are not violating it, I thing they just haven’t go around to release
it. And I’d agree with them. If people would want access to it to
fix some specific stuff then I’d say QSSL should raise the priority
of this issue. But if it just out of curiousity, I’d say QSSL should
not hury.
My understanding is that if they make the binary available, they have to make
the sources available. The GPL makes no exceptions regarding why you want the
source code (curiosity or bug fixes) - if you’re delivering software that uses
GNU sources, you’re supposed to make the sources available. The GPL also
doesn’t say it has to be clean or neat either… just that you make them
available. One would hope that QSSL does as professional a job on the compiler
sources as they obviously do on the operating system, in which case the only
issue would seem to be posting the tar file on an ftp site.
I assume the folks at FSF are aware of this?
I said “contact their lawyers” as a joke, mainly to point out the fact that
at QSSL lawyers are having a more important role now then in the past.
I didn’t mean to say they are defying the GPL license. Actually in
some people opinion they (lawyers) are taking the GPL license too seriously.It seems the lawyers interpratation of the GPL license is different
then the interpretation of the community in general. But that’s off topic,
this is a technical forum, sorry I even raise the issue.
Well it still seems fishy to me that there are executables and no source code.
It’s not like they have to do anything fancy, just tar the thing as it sits and
post it somewhere. Even setting up a CVS server is pretty trivial. In my opinion
if they saved on resources by using free software then they should expect to
spend at least some of those saved resources on putting up the sources.
I’m not at all excited about using QNX to host the development as well - that’s
a pretty crude approach, so I’d really like to get my hands on an NT hosted
cross compiler that could target QNX and/or Neutrino so I can make some more
informed recommendations.
Thanks for the info!
Regards,
Dan Haynes
Mario Charest wrote:
Although they should be available according to GPL they are not.
Give QSSL lawyers a call.“Dan Haynes” <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote in message
news:> 39B98757.2878391B@ibm.net> …
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet
binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).Any pointers?
Thanks!
Dan Haynes
Dan Haynes wrote:
Well, I’m not fond of the GNU tool chain in the first place, having been using
it for cross development to m68k platforms for a couple of years.
Just cusrious now, what kept you doing that for years then?
The haphazard
way the various components are tested and updated is frustrating at best. The
GNU mindset/philosophy clashes at a fundamental level with the concept of
reliable software development. Also the code produced by the GNU compiler for
the 68k (GNUPro) is pretty sad for a embedded system usage. Tasking, Sierra and
a lot of other compilers I’ve worked with did a much better job since they
weren’t trying to target every CPU on the planet. I’m wary of the size of the
x86 code.
You’ve been using their work for years of (I suppose) commercial
development. Now instead of pissing into GNU pool you could have a
decency to at least say “thank you folks”. IMHO of course…
My understanding is that if they make the binary available, they have to make
the sources available. The GPL makes no exceptions regarding why you want the
source code (curiosity or bug fixes) - if you’re delivering software that uses
GNU sources, you’re supposed to make the sources available. The GPL also
doesn’t say it has to be clean or neat either… just that you make them
available. One would hope that QSSL does as professional a job on the compiler
sources as they obviously do on the operating system, in which case the only
issue would seem to be posting the tar file on an ftp site.
If you care to actually read GPL license, you’ll find out that you
have 2 options: either ship source with binaries, or commit to give that
source to anyone who asks for at least 3 years (I might be wrong about
exact number of years).
When we asked QSSL, they gave us their GCC source and actually helped me
to work my way through ‘canadien cross’ (compile on QNX4 to run on
Solaris and generate code for NTO). GNU license does not oblige them to
do so by the way.
Well it still seems fishy to me that there are executables and no source code.
It’s not like they have to do anything fancy, just tar the thing as it sits and
post it somewhere. Even setting up a CVS server is pretty trivial. In my opinion
if they saved on resources by using free software then they should expect to
spend at least some of those saved resources on putting up the sources.
Let me get it straight. You’re talking about QNX4 port of GCC, or NTO
port? QSSL never distributed QNX4 port. Jean Claude made the port and I
believe he gives patches away. As for NTO, you obviously did not try to
ask them before giving your opinions about how they should do their
business.
- igor
If you care to actually read GPL license, you’ll find out that you
have 2 options: either ship source with binaries, or commit to give that
source to anyone who asks for at least 3 years (I might be wrong about
exact number of years).
You have to ask during 3 years ??? lol!
When we asked QSSL, they gave us their GCC source and actually helped me
to work my way through ‘canadien cross’ (compile on QNX4 to run on
Solaris and generate code for NTO). GNU license does not oblige them to
do so by the way.
With all due respect Igor, you’re a big customer, they are more likely to
respond
to your request I don’t think that if I’d be buying 10 licenses a year that
they
would respond so deligently ( I consider that normal ).
Well it still seems fishy to me that there are executables and no source
code.
It’s not like they have to do anything fancy, just tar the thing as it
sits and
post it somewhere. Even setting up a CVS server is pretty trivial. In my
opinion
if they saved on resources by using free software then they should
expect to
spend at least some of those saved resources on putting up the sources.
Personnaly I couldn’t care less about availability of the source. There is
no
way I will spend 5 minutes looking into this stuff, no more then I would
spend
5 minutes looking at the schematic of a hammer. I want to use the damn
thing.
Personnaly the who GNU/GPL stuff makes me nervous. But I now consider
it’s been taken under QSSL wing. They can be help responsible for the
quality of the tools, personnaly that’s all I ask. That the root of the
product
is GNU or from outter space makes no difference to me (I realized that,
thanks to
this discussion).
Let me get it straight. You’re talking about QNX4 port of GCC, or NTO
port? QSSL never distributed QNX4 port. Jean Claude made the port and I
believe he gives patches away. As for NTO, you obviously did not try to
ask them before giving your opinions about how they should do their
business.
- igor
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
Dan Haynes wrote:
Well, I’m not fond of the GNU tool chain in the first place, having been using
it for cross development to m68k platforms for a couple of years.Just cusrious now, what kept you doing that for years then?
The haphazard
way the various components are tested and updated is frustrating at best. The
GNU mindset/philosophy clashes at a fundamental level with the concept of
reliable software development. Also the code produced by the GNU compiler for
the 68k (GNUPro) is pretty sad for a embedded system usage. Tasking, Sierra and
a lot of other compilers I’ve worked with did a much better job since they
weren’t trying to target every CPU on the planet. I’m wary of the size of the
x86 code.
You’ve been using their work for years of (I suppose) commercial
development. Now instead of pissing into GNU pool you could have a
decency to at least say “thank you folks”. IMHO of course…
I didn’t ask GNU to produce the software, nor did I ask them to make it freely
available. I did not select it for the project I’ve been working on. For my own
projects I’ve actually paid out of my own pocket for MKS Toolkit, Borland, Watcom
etc., so I pretty much don’t owe the FSF anything. I stated the fact that gcc produces
larger and less efficient code than compilers targeted primarily or exclusively at a
specific CPU, and expressed my concern that the x86 code is likely to be as bloated as
the 68k. It is also a fact that there aren’t good quality assurance standards for
releases of software distributed under GPL. In fact usually there are none except on
some of the high profile (“fun”) pieces like the compiler. If you take my
personal/professional/factual dislike for that as an affront to the FSF, that falls
clearly into the categories of “not my problem” and “not on topic for this newsgroup”.
Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that the GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone (hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a web or ftp site
somewhere.
Regards,
Dan Haynes
“Dan Haynes” <haynesd@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:39BD1E1B.C26F1F80@ibm.net…
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
Dan Haynes wrote:
Well, I’m not fond of the GNU tool chain in the first place, having
been using
it for cross development to m68k platforms for a couple of years.Just cusrious now, what kept you doing that for years then?
The haphazard
way the various components are tested and updated is frustrating at
best. The
GNU mindset/philosophy clashes at a fundamental level with the concept
of
reliable software development. Also the code produced by the GNU
compiler for
the 68k (GNUPro) is pretty sad for a embedded system usage. Tasking,
Sierra and
a lot of other compilers I’ve worked with did a much better job since
they
weren’t trying to target every CPU on the planet. I’m wary of the size
of the
x86 code.
You’ve been using their work for years of (I suppose) commercial
development. Now instead of pissing into GNU pool you could have a
decency to at least say “thank you folks”. IMHO of course…I didn’t ask GNU to produce the software, nor did I ask them to make it
freely
available. I did not select it for the project I’ve been working on. For
my own
projects I’ve actually paid out of my own pocket for MKS Toolkit, Borland,
Watcom
etc., so I pretty much don’t owe the FSF anything. I stated the fact that
gcc produces
larger and less efficient code than compilers targeted primarily or
exclusively at a
specific CPU, and expressed my concern that the x86 code is likely to be
as bloated as
the 68k. It is also a fact that there aren’t good quality assurance
standards for
releases of software distributed under GPL.
I agree with you, but on the other hand isn’t compiling/Building Linux a
good test 
In fact usually there are none except on
some of the high profile (“fun”) pieces like the compiler. If you take my
personal/professional/factual dislike for that as an affront to the FSF,
that falls
clearly into the categories of “not my problem” and “not on topic for this
newsgroup”.Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the
sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that the
GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who
receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone
(hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a web
or ftp site
somewhere.
I can’t you help you here. But I’m curious, why do you need it?
Regards,
Dan Haynes
\
Dan Haynes wrote:
I didn’t ask GNU to produce the software, nor did I ask them to make it freely
available. I did not select it for the project I’ve been working on. For my own
projects I’ve actually paid out of my own pocket for MKS Toolkit, Borland, Watcom
etc., so I pretty much don’t owe the FSF anything.
You were paid by your employeer then and since your employeer benefited
from existense of GNU software, you benefited too, just indirectly. Yes,
you don’t owe anything to FSF, other than a reasonable level of respect.
I stated the fact that gcc produces
larger and less efficient code than compilers targeted primarily or exclusively at a
specific CPU, and expressed my concern that the x86 code is likely to be as bloated as
the 68k. It is also a fact that there aren’t good quality assurance standards for
releases of software distributed under GPL. In fact usually there are none except on
some of the high profile (“fun”) pieces like the compiler. If you take my
personal/professional/factual dislike for that as an affront to the FSF, that falls
clearly into the categories of “not my problem” and “not on topic for this newsgroup”.
There is nothing wrong and nothing new with the fact you’re stating.
Comparing free compiler which has mission to support as many platforms
as possible and for no charge, with specialized commercial tools is
meaningless to begin with.
Even more meaningless is to complain about GNU ‘fundamentally clashing’
with robust software development. Linux is known to be less buggy than
Windows (which I suppose is good example of commercially developed
software). Not to mention meaningless complains about QSSL violating GPL
which you haven’t read.
I just don’t get it. You’re going to use Neutrino and GCC apparently,
but you’ve managed to offend both in signle posting. Why don’t you just
stick to whatever suits your taste then?
Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that the GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone (hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a web or ftp site
somewhere.
Oh, so much passion about GPL (which you dislike so much)… Well, I
don’t have enough bran in my diet obviously. Try to cross-post to gnu
groups, you might get some input…
- igor
Mario Charest wrote:
If you care to actually read GPL license, you’ll find out that you
have 2 options: either ship source with binaries, or commit to give that
source to anyone who asks for at least 3 years (I might be wrong about
exact number of years).You have to ask during 3 years ??? lol!
My english still sucks, huh?
For at least 3 years since you start shipping binaries, you have to keep
giving source to anyone who got binary and asks you to. Damn, it sucks
even more
With all due respect Igor, you’re a big customer, they are more likely to
respond
to your request I don’t think that if I’d be buying 10 licenses a year that
they
would respond so deligently ( I consider that normal ).
You might be surprized, but we are big in size but small in orders
Really, the volumes we’re talking are nothing big. We’re not doing
embedded high-volume stuff. We’re doing high-end low volume systems.
Perhaps we’re taxing the system as noone else, so they wanted input from
us.
Anyway, if a customer calls its sales rep and presents a reason why they
can’t proceed with their business case without source, I don’t think
QSSL will ignore it.
- igor
Dan Haynes <haynesd@ibm.net> wrote:
Well, since it’s unlikely they would honor their customer licensing any more
than they would honor the GPL, I guess that’s something else to consider in
evaluating the systems. This is a big score in favor of Windows CE.I dislike the GPL and I don’t like the idea of using GNU software in
general… but it’s the way FSF wants to do it and the GPL is straightforward
and it seems exceptionally dishonest to willingly violate it.I assume the folks at FSF are aware of this?
Thanks,
Dan Haynes
Dear Mr. Haynes (or anyone else who’s interested)
If you want our modified source to gcc, send email to cburgess@qnx.com,
and he will tell you where you can get it from.
It will eventually be available from the gcc maintainers as part of the
standard package, but it takes time to get diffs merged back in when
you have added copyrighted material to the thing. We need to provide
FSF with legal agreements stating that they have our blessing with
regard to including such copyrighted QSSL intellectual property with
gcc.
This does point out however that yes, the FSF is aware of what we’re
doing with gcc.
As someone else mentioned, it is not neccessary to ship source code with
your product. You must simply make it available to anyone who asks.
For anyone else out there who wants it, it does not matter if the person
asking is from a big company or a small one, nor does it matter if they
ask politely or behave like a jackass. Anyone who wants it can get it.
Previously, Dan Haynes wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that the GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone (hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a web or ftp site
somewhere.
For which O/S? Assuming you can read the name of the the newsgroup you are posting
in, then gcc for QNX4 is not distributed by QSSL, but the port was supported to
some extent by them, see: www.teaser.fr/~jcmichot
For RTP, gcc src is not posted (the GPL does not require this), but those who have
asked on the beta groups have received, afaik, as required by GPL. Note that if
QSSL hasn’t distributed gcc for RTP to you, then they are under no obligation to
distribute the source to you either. You could ask Igor or Mario, they have the
right to distibute the source to you if they wished.
Note: the GPL applies to “distributed” s/w. There is precedent (Corel’s Linux
distribution) for this to mean that the source does not have to be made
available during early or limited beta testing. The RTP clearly is still in this
stage. The justification is that distributing and packaging of s/w is a burden
that can be left until release, and not be done at every minor upgrade. You
may not agree with this, and it has not been tested in court, but the Linux
hordes failed to massacre Corel on this, so I’d say its been tested as well as
the GPL has ever been tested.
And stating that the FSF’s s/w is systematically of lower quality is at worst BS,
and at best a troll. I’d suggest comp.os.windows.advocacy if you wish to make
a case that GP s/w is inherently of inferior quality to receptive ears.
Most users of Unix-like systems have derived incredible value from GPLed s/w,
and even if some aren’t die-hard fans of the FSF’s politics, acknowledge this.
Sam
–
Sam Roberts (sam@cogent.ca), Cogent Real-Time Systems (www.cogent.ca)
pete@qnx.com wrote:
As someone else mentioned, it is not neccessary to ship source code with
your product. You must simply make it available to anyone who asks.For anyone else out there who wants it, it does not matter if the person
asking is from a big company or a small one, nor does it matter if they
ask politely or behave like a jackass. Anyone who wants it can get it.
That’s the part I don’t like in GPL - it promotes jackassness
- igor
“Sam Roberts” <sam@cogent.ca> wrote in message
news:Voyager.000911163102.9578A@sam.cogent.ca…
Previously, Dan Haynes wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the
sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that
the GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who
receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone
(hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a
web or ftp site
somewhere.For which O/S? Assuming you can read the name of the the newsgroup you are
posting
in, then gcc for QNX4 is not distributed by QSSL, but the port was
supported to
some extent by them, see: > www.teaser.fr/~jcmichotFor RTP, gcc src is not posted (the GPL does not require this), but
those who have
asked on the beta groups have received, afaik, as required by GPL. Note
that if
QSSL hasn’t distributed gcc for RTP to you, then they are under no
obligation to
distribute the source to you either. You could ask Igor or Mario, they
have the
right to distibute the source to you if they wished.
I don’t have the source. Nor do I care about it
Dan Haynes <haynesd@ibm.net> wrote:
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).
You can get the binaries for windows as part of the Code Warrior
beta (soon to be released). I think that they will also be available
as a separate SDK.
Also, while we have given the GNU sources out to individuals before,
I’ve got tired of the sniping and accusations of criminal behaviour,
so I have posted the head branch of our internal CVS repository
for gcc 2.95.2, binutils 2.9.1 and gdb 4.17 on my web page. You
can find these at
http://www.qnx.com/~cburgess/gnu/index.html
Of course these sources are provided without any guarantee that
they will build, nor any support from QSSL.
Colin Burgess wrote:
Dan Haynes <> haynesd@ibm.net> > wrote:
I can’t seem to find the sources for the QNX gcc port, or better yet binaries
for cross developing from Windows NT (with or without Cygwin).You can get the binaries for windows as part of the Code Warrior
beta (soon to be released). I think that they will also be available
as a separate SDK.Also, while we have given the GNU sources out to individuals before,
I’ve got tired of the sniping and accusations of criminal behaviour,
so I have posted the head branch of our internal CVS repository
for gcc 2.95.2, binutils 2.9.1 and gdb 4.17 on my web page. You
can find these athttp://www.qnx.com/~cburgess/gnu/index.html
Of course these sources are provided without any guarantee that
they will build, nor any support from QSSL.
Nice move Colin, I hope this settles it
Those who prefer to troll rather than ask politely will soon find out
that it is pretty hard to find a way in those sources, unless you have
someone who did that already and willing to help. Perhaps some will even
decide it might be better to ask politely then…
- igor
Sam Roberts wrote:
Previously, Dan Haynes wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Getting back to my original question, if someone has a pointer to the sources for the
compiler port(s), I’d appreciate it. Since the GPL clearly states that the GPL applies
to each and every recipient of the GPL’ed sources (i.e. anyone who receives the
sources has a full license to re-distribute them) I assume someone (hopefully someone
who has a good bit more bran in their diet) already has posted it on a web or ftp site
somewhere.For which O/S? Assuming you can read the name of the the newsgroup you are posting
in, then gcc for QNX4 is not distributed by QSSL, but the port was supported to
some extent by them, see: > www.teaser.fr/~jcmichot
Thank you for the info!
I did not know that there were different ports of gcc - I assumed there was one for both
systems since it sounds like QNX and Neutrino are very similar.
I was basically handed a license floppy, a CD, and terminal hardware with most of the
instructions written in German. Now I need to figure out what it will take to make something
happen with it. I fiddled around with QNX many, many years ago but just basic
evaluation/experimenting. I am just now in the beginning stages of learning what it is like
today.
For RTP, gcc src is not posted (the GPL does not require this), but those who have
asked on the beta groups have received, afaik, as required by GPL. Note that if
QSSL hasn’t distributed gcc for RTP to you, then they are under no obligation to
distribute the source to you either. You could ask Igor or Mario, they have the
right to distibute the source to you if they wished.
Note: the GPL applies to “distributed” s/w. There is precedent (Corel’s Linux
distribution) for this to mean that the source does not have to be made
available during early or limited beta testing. The RTP clearly is still in this
stage. The justification is that distributing and packaging of s/w is a burden
that can be left until release, and not be done at every minor upgrade. You
may not agree with this, and it has not been tested in court, but the Linux
hordes failed to massacre Corel on this, so I’d say its been tested as well as
the GPL has ever been tested.
I don’t have any idea what the ‘RTP’ package is other than some marketing blurbs on the web
page. It doesn’t look like it exists yet, so it’s not of interest to me. My limited (and
perhaps flawed) understanding is that since the Watcom/Symantec compiler is belly up, gcc
was tapped as the ‘official’ development compiler for QNX/Neutrino. I made the assumption
that little (if any) development would be done on the target platform and I was (and still
am) a bit confused as to why the tools don’t simply come set up as cross-development suite
hosted on NT/Linux/FreeBSD.
I’m just now realizing that it seems some people actually develop under the target system.
In my case this is not desirable or practical. I just want to build an executable from tools
hosted on an ordinary NT workstation, copy the output file(s) to a PCMCIA card and plug that
into the target. I really don’t want the application programmers to have to learn Unix/QNX
trivia just to check out the sources and build the project.
Anyway, in reading the previous posts to see if I could find the sources, I saw posts from
QSSL employees. I made the assumption that if I posted here I would simply get a pointer
from someone there to ‘e-mail so and so and they’ll tell you how to get it’ or ‘it’s on the
ftp site at…’. I was not expecting a post saying effectively “It’s not available, talk to
their lawyers”. Since that information came from a knowledgable source who posts frequently
and seems a reasonable guy, I took the whole message literally rather than partially tongue
in cheek the way it was apparently intended.
And stating that the FSF’s s/w is systematically of lower quality is at worst BS,
and at best a troll. I’d suggest comp.os.windows.advocacy if you wish to makea case that GP s/w is inherently of inferior quality to receptive ears.
Most users of Unix-like systems have derived incredible value from GPLed s/w,
and even if some aren’t die-hard fans of the FSF’s politics, acknowledge this.
I’ve had a different experience. Having used good quality commerical tools for the last 15
years, the last couple of years dealing with “oh you need to get this patch which you would
have known had you spent time monitoring 20 different mailing lists”, or “oh you need to
download that from here and get this from there… they’ve never been tested together but
they should work…” bit has been very frustrating for me. I’ve spent most of the last 13
years working on systems with extremely strict government regulations. The last two years
I’ve been on a project using “free” software. It has been more of a hinderance than a help
to me due to completely uncontrolled and/or poorly tested releases of various packages. That
is a fact, not b.s. or a troll.
Anyway, I appreciate your help with finding the compiler sources. Thank you!
Now let’s see what bit of ancient Unix history I have to learn so I can mis-configure that
build… 
Regards,
Dan Haynes
pete@qnx.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Haynes (or anyone else who’s interested)
If you want our modified source to gcc, send email to > cburgess@qnx.com> ,
and he will tell you where you can get it from.
This is what I was expecting to read - not (paraphrasing) “It’s not
availble, talk to QSSL laywers”.
It will eventually be available from the gcc maintainers as part of the
standard package, but it takes time to get diffs merged back in when
you have added copyrighted material to the thing. We need to provide
FSF with legal agreements stating that they have our blessing with
regard to including such copyrighted QSSL intellectual property with
gcc.This does point out however that yes, the FSF is aware of what we’re
doing with gcc.As someone else mentioned, it is not neccessary to ship source code with
your product. You must simply make it available to anyone who asks.For anyone else out there who wants it, it does not matter if the person
asking is from a big company or a small one, nor does it matter if they
ask politely or behave like a jackass. Anyone who wants it can get it.
In every other experience I’ve had with GNU software there have always been
sources (and often a binary) readily available on an FTP server or an FAQ
explaining where/how to request/obtain the sources/binaries. QSSL is an
exception to that. There appears to be no such information about the tools in
the FAQs (or if it’s there, it is buried deeply enough to be difficult to find
using the provided search engine) and apparently nothing on the FTP site. A
search of the entire www.qnx.com site for ‘gcc compiler sources’ produces no
relevant information and no links to relevant information. When no sources are
mentioned, no contact information provided, no posts in the any of the
qdn.public.* heirachy mention them, and a search using Google and AltaVista
for “qnx compiler sources” produces nothing useful anywhere on the net and a
post to the news groups yields what appears to be a serious answer from a
knowledgable source that says (again paraphrasing) “It’s not availble, talk to
QSSL laywers”, it’s pretty reasonable to assume something really stupid is
going on.
So now that we’ve had fun keeping the VSIK (very special inside knowledge) a
secret before finally let loose with a link, I can now get on with my job.
Considering that even a notoriously proprietary outfit like Microsoft readily
offers the sources for the Windows CE kernel just for the cost of shipping the
CD, one would think that finding the sources to a port of free development
tools would have required a good bit less searching and waiting.
Dan Haynes