Re: EGCS as a component

[mal at bewoner dot dma dot be]

David Starner writes:
 > Joe Buck wrote:
 > > 
 > > >    There's gotta be a better way to organize the code, to enable tool
 > > > writers to leverage the remarkably stable front-ends (C/C++ anyway) of
 > > > egcs.
 > > 
 > > I'm afraid that's exactly what RMS is extremely worried about:
 > > specifically, that proposed changes make it easier for *proprietary*
 > > tools to use the gcc front ends or back ends.
 > 
 > It's been done before - SRC Modula-3 used what I would guess was a
 > back-end-interface style front-end to gcc and wrote its own proprietary
 > Modula-3 front end. 
 > 
 > -- 
 > David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
 > "Repent, Harlequin", said the Ticktock man.

Proprietary is a bit strong. They distributed it in source form with a 
non GPL license with was (probably - IANAL) compatible with GPL. I
seem to recall there was some discussion between RMS and Bill Kalsow
about the matter, but calling SRC Modula-3 proprietary is wrong. You
can get the whole system under a very generous license.

Lieven