>> No, I haven't started on it.  I was doing something else
 >> (reading someone else's code at work).  I'm still waiting for
 >> a reply from David Begley in PUBLIC_DOMAIN to find out all
 >> the different GNU stuff that is available, and clarification
 >> of what exactly it was that didn't fall into the normal GNU
 >> license.

 dn> All of it does - but there is a special modification for the gnu
 dn> libraries. Use of _unmodified_ sources of any part of the libraries is a
 dn> 'free for all' and you don't have to provide sources (which is an
 dn> exception as far as all other FSF source code goes). As soon as you modify
 dn> something, you are obliged under the GPL to supply the modified portions
 dn> along with your program or make an undertaking to supply it for X years at
 dn> the request of the end user of your code.

You're going to have to give me the bottom line on this one, I'm afraid
David. What I want to do, is write a commercial program, compile it with
GNU C++, link it with the GNU libraries, and then sell the executable for
large amounts of money, and not give one red cent to FSF, and if anyone
asks for the source code to my program, I'll tell them to get stuffed.

Does the license allow me to do this.  If it does, I could well switch to
GNU for my work, as having a compiler with source code, is a novel idea!!!

Basically, I have no intention of making any of my code fall under the GNU
license, so would rather buy a commercial compiler.  I may want to make the
executable PD, but not provide the source code (I have done this before,
with TFON670).  However, if I am allowed to do what I asked to be able to
do in the first paragraph, then replacing the GNU library is an extremely
low priority job, as there are far more important things waiting to go into
the PD.  BFN.

Paul

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G1114