PE>>> I write a lot of Public Domain software, practically everything I do
 PE>>> at home is.  However, I don't use the GNU compilers, because they are
 PE>>> next to useless to me, because I don't have the flexibility of
 PE>>> writing commerical software with them, like I have with IBM or
 PE>>> Borland compilers.

 RS>> OTOH you can argue that that wouldnt worry a completely dedicated PD
 RS>> person, who presumably wouldnt be writing anything except PD stuff.

 PE>> Not true.  I can't distribute the executable as Public Domain for the
 PE>> same reason that I can't sell the executable - because it is a
 PE>> "derived work".

 RS> We appear to be talking about different things here. I was talking about
 RS> what compiler etc is used to produce PD stuff. Whether the PD author
 RS> uses a commercial or PD compiler. You appear to be talking about
 RS> expanding on the PD compiler and what can be done with the expanded form.

No, the runtime library (e.g. fread()) is written by GNU, and gets linked
into my executable, and this makes it a derived work.  I don't have the
same problem with commercial compilers.

 RS> You appear to include in the description commercial, anything which isnt
 RS> PD. Including the shareware type stuff. Using your terms, sure, using
 RS> mine, nope.

Commercial is anything that is copyrighted and being sold.  GNU stuff is
copyrighted but not being sold, so I don't classify that as commercial.

 RS> I'm not saying it never ever happens, but you take the complete
 RS> collection of mainstream commercial stuff, all spreadsheets, database,
 RS> wp, etc etc, there is very little of that which is actually build on PD

That's because there's nothing around to build on!

 PE>>> That way when you go and purchase their product, all the money you
 PE>>> pay goes into the development of something NEW, instead of what's
 PE>>> already available in the PD.

 RS>> Cant argue with the advantage, just argue about if it will ever
 RS>> happen like that. IMO it wont.

 PE>> Well the first thing to decide, is whether it is POSSIBLE.

 RS> Well, I dont think there ever has been any read doubt about that.
 RS> Clearly its possible.

If it is possible for the PD stuff to be used more easily than it would be
to write it yourself (which it usually isn't, I don't know that I can gain
anything by wading through PVERT, getting rid of compiler-specific stuff,
and various other non-ISO assumptions, implementing my error-handling
strategy etc), then the commercial ventures (perhaps the small ones, not
your Borland + co) will be able to have a competitive advantage by building
on the stuff available in PD.  Basically, it needs to be easily reusable.
Perhaps we should discuss what makes software reusable.  BFN.

Paul

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G1114