🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <358EEDCA.1A66@compuserve.com>, shiva@well.com wrote:

>>>Can anyone direct me to the location of the sources for ADI's G21K C
>>>compiler for SHARC DSP? This compiler is based on the Gnu 2.7 GCC, so in
>>>principle the sources should be publically available. I'd like to
>>>rebuild it with 2.8 to produce an OS/2-hosted C++ compiler. I don't see
>>>the SHARC target in the GCC 2.8 distribution.

It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.

In comp.dsp Krister Lagerstr�m <Krister.Lagerstrom@unidata.se> wrote:
: Uwe Bonnes wrote:
:> 
:> In comp.dsp Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky@tiac.net> wrote:
:> : In article <358EEDCA.1A66@compuserve.com>, shiva@well.com wrote:
:> 
:> :>>>Can anyone direct me to the location of the sources for ADI's G21K C
:> :>>>compiler for SHARC DSP? This compiler is based on the Gnu 2.7 GCC, so in
:> :>>>principle the sources should be publically available. I'd like to
:> :>>>rebuild it with 2.8 to produce an OS/2-hosted C++ compiler. I don't see
:> :>>>the SHARC target in the GCC 2.8 distribution.
:> 
:> : It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.
:> 
:> At what price?

: $150 according to the local distributor here in Sweden...

Hallo again,

has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?
According to the GNU Licence this is legal!

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

>In comp.dsp Krister Lagerstr�m <Krister.Lagerstrom@unidata.se> wrote:
>: Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>:> 
[Snip]
>:> Someone else wrote:
>:> : It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.
>:> 
>:> At what price?
>
>: $150 according to the local distributor here in Sweden...
>

Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
[Snip]
>has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?
>According to the GNU Licence this is legal!

For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?

-- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@pug1.SprocketShop.com> 

The scum also rises.
	-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

In comp.dsp Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky@tiac.net> wrote:
: In article <358EEDCA.1A66@compuserve.com>, shiva@well.com wrote:

:>>>Can anyone direct me to the location of the sources for ADI's G21K C
:>>>compiler for SHARC DSP? This compiler is based on the Gnu 2.7 GCC, so in
:>>>principle the sources should be publically available. I'd like to
:>>>rebuild it with 2.8 to produce an OS/2-hosted C++ compiler. I don't see
:>>>the SHARC target in the GCC 2.8 distribution.

: It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.

At what price?

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> 
> In comp.dsp Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky@tiac.net> wrote:
> : In article <358EEDCA.1A66@compuserve.com>, shiva@well.com wrote:
> 
> :>>>Can anyone direct me to the location of the sources for ADI's G21K C
> :>>>compiler for SHARC DSP? This compiler is based on the Gnu 2.7 GCC, so in
> :>>>principle the sources should be publically available. I'd like to
> :>>>rebuild it with 2.8 to produce an OS/2-hosted C++ compiler. I don't see
> :>>>the SHARC target in the GCC 2.8 distribution.
> 
> : It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.
> 
> At what price?

$150 according to the local distributor here in Sweden...

		/ Krister
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------+
| UniData HB            | Krister Lagerstr�m                     |
| Vasagatan 58          |                                        |
| SE-411 37 G�teborg    | Mobile:  +46 705 81 19 72              |
| Tel: +46 31 743 47 22 | Email:   Krister.Lagerstrom@unidata.se |
| Fax: +46 31 743 47 23 | WWW:     http://www.unidata.se         |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------+

In comp.dsp Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com> wrote:
:>In comp.dsp Krister Lagerstr�m <Krister.Lagerstrom@unidata.se> wrote:
:>: Uwe Bonnes wrote:
:>:> 
: [Snip]
:>:> Someone else wrote:
:>:> : It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.
:>:> 
:>:> At what price?
:>
:>: $150 according to the local distributor here in Sweden...
:>

: Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
: [Snip]
:>has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?
:>According to the GNU Licence this is legal!

: For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
: company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
: using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?

Hallo,

there are several reasons:
- I only use it very rarely. If I would code for the 2106x every day, 
the 150$ (plus handling) would be justified.
- According to the GNU Licence, the fare should only be for handling
150$ is quite high
- Krister Lagerstr�m code seem adapted and easier to apply.

Bye
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

Kenneth P. Turvey (kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com) wrote:
: For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
: company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
: using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?

Analog Devices is a huge semiconductor firm.  They specialize in things like
op-amps, A/D-D/A converters, and have a line of DSPs (to name a few).

Personally, I'll never understand why semiconductor companies charge many $$
for their basic development tools (is this even consistent with GPL?).
Isn't their goal to sell chips?  Won't more people use their cpus if tools
were free?

Of course if your tools are very buggy a company then won't have any signifi-
cant investment to keep them from switching to someone else...but even those 
with the best tools charge many $K.  (I'll never forget when TI's local rep
told me how much the compilers for the brand-new 'C80 were ~$100K.  I just
laughed...They've come way down since then of course, but are still expensive)

(Note: these comments only apply to the basic assembler, stripped-down
compiler, standard C library.  Emulators of course cost $$ since they include
hardware; and if you want someone to write an FFT for you then be prepared
to cough up $$).

BTW these are my personal opinions.  If you want OSC's opinion I'll point
you to our PR guy... ;)

-- 
Kenneth Ryan                    ryan@oscsystems.com
Principal Engineer		(301) 353-1714		M/S: E-15
Orbital Sciences Corp.          FAX:     -8679          20301 Century Blvd.
   / Fairchild Defense          FAX:     -8679          Germantown, MD 20874

	<6nq2gl$p5i$2@sun27.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
	<35A0A36B.358C49E1@unidata.se>
	<6nqq2m$ai5$1@sun27.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
	<%R6Wo1MdTy@draugen.kvaleberg.no>
Date: 07 Jul 1998 11:41:49 -0400
Message-ID: <nb4u34t8y82.fsf@dejavu.spd.analog.com>
Organization: Analog Devices CPD
Lines: 57
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.33

Without commenting on ADI's actions wrt the GPL, let me say a few
things.

Egil Kvaleberg <egil@kvaleberg.no> writes:

> On 6 Jul 1998, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> 
> > has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?
> 
> I have, and anyone may pick them up at:
> 
> 	ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/egilk/g21k-rel3.0.tar.gz
> 
> ...
>
> BTW, my order took months to process, and you'd have to fork out $150 for
> every new version of the compiler. I wonder how far the GPL can be 
> stretched in this respect?  

How long ago did you order/receive the sources you just posted?
They appear to be pretty ancient.

>       a. Assembler.
>       b. Linker/librarian.
>       c. C library, including signal processing functions.
>       d. Debugger.
> 
> AFAIK, AD uses their own linker and assembler. I assume that it would 
> be possible to port GNU stuff, but DSPs tends to be rather different from
> conventional processors, so it is probably a rather big job. The C-like
> syntax of the AD assemblers would also create difficulties, I'd say.

It is certainly true that just having the compiler sources is not
sufficient to do development.  The linker and assembler are home-grown.
I'm not sure porting GNU ld would be terribly difficult, although I have
no direct experience.  The assembler syntax, as you point out, is
decidedly non-traditional.

I believe the C library, including sources, is shipped with the
development tools package.  It certainly has no GPL'd code in it.

> WRT the debugger, the AD debugger seems to contain parts of GDB.
> This should mean that they would have to supply the source code for the
> entire debugger, it pressed. Alas, I have not had the time to investigate 
> this any further.

I don't know enough about the debugger to comment.

It is worth mentioning that almost all of the pieces you mention
(including the compiler) have either been replaced in the 4.0
(VisualDSP) release, or will soon be replaced.  (The one exception is
the runtime library.)

-Vince Del Vecchio
vince . delvecchio @ analog . com
Compiler Engineer
Working but not speaking for Analog Devices

On 7 Jul 1998 08:31:51 GMT, 
Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
>: For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
>: company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
>: using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?
>
>Hallo,
>
>there are several reasons:
>- I only use it very rarely. If I would code for the 2106x every day, 
>the 150$ (plus handling) would be justified.

You wouldn't have to use it very often to justify $150.  

>- According to the GNU Licence, the fare should only be for handling
>150$ is quite high
>- Krister Lagerstr�m code seem adapted and easier to apply.

There is nothing in the GPL that indicates the fare should be only for
handling.  $150 seems more than reasonable to me.  


-- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@pug1.SprocketShop.com> 

It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.
	-- George Bernard Shaw

On 6 Jul 1998, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

> has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?

I have, and anyone may pick them up at:

	ftp://ftp.sn.no/user/egilk/g21k-rel3.0.tar.gz

I've made a few changes to make it compile in a sane manner, please
refer to the README.
	
Also note that this is only the compiler. Most essential parts
of a useful Sharc development system is still missing:

      a. Assembler.
      b. Linker/librarian.
      c. C library, including signal processing functions.
      d. Debugger.

AFAIK, AD uses their own linker and assembler. I assume that it would 
be possible to port GNU stuff, but DSPs tends to be rather different from
conventional processors, so it is probably a rather big job. The C-like
syntax of the AD assemblers would also create difficulties, I'd say.

WRT the debugger, the AD debugger seems to contain parts of GDB.
This should mean that they would have to supply the source code for the
entire debugger, it pressed. Alas, I have not had the time to investigate 
this any further.

BTW, my order took months to process, and you'd have to fork out $150 for
every new version of the compiler. I wonder how far the GPL can be 
stretched in this respect?  

Egil
-- 
Email: egil@kvaleberg.no  Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899
Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
URL:   http://www.kvaleberg.com/           PGP: finger:egil@kvaleberg.com

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:

> There is nothing in the GPL that indicates the fare should be only for
> handling.

Did you ever read the GPL? It says:

     You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy

and:     

     for a charge no more than your
     cost of physically performing source distribution

> $150 seems more than reasonable to me.  

Do keep in mind that they charge this for any update, and that the delay
is significant (speaking of months). Also that this distribution is not
complete. There is no library or include-files, not even the bare-bones
required to properly complete the compilation of the Sharc GCC. Presumably 
these are available as separate packages - although I have not seen their
written offer to this effect - and presumably at a charge of $150 for
every component of the system that is, or should have been, licensed
according to GPL. At any rate, you do not discover this until you have
already waited months to get the initial source distribution. They even
did not document anything about the media format used for the distribution
- I had to spend significant effort just to have it read. 

The primary issue here is that AD has felt themselves entirely free to
make use of the very significant effort behind the GCC, saving themselves
a huge amount of development effort and money in the process. But when it
comes to sharing their modified work they do not seem so keen any longer -
and IMHO they seem to try to make this as difficult as they can possibly
get away with. 

IANAL, and cannot vouch for whether what they do are actually in
accordance with the GPL, or not. Although I have a strong suspicion that
they should at least have had to provide bare-bones C include files and
library to at least allow the cross-compiler to build properly. 

IMHO, had AD been serious about the spirit of the GPL, they would of
course simply have made the full source code available on their FTP site.
Along with the very related essential components such as an assembler and
a linker. Plus the debugger of course, into which they seem to have
integrated the GNU debugger. 

Egil
-- 
Email: egil@kvaleberg.no  Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899
Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
URL:   http://www.kvaleberg.com/           PGP: finger:egil@kvaleberg.com

On 7 Jul 1998, Vince Del Vecchio wrote:

> How long ago did you order/receive the sources you just posted?

It was just over a year ago. I had a brief look at it, and decided that
mostly due to the lack of an assembler, it was more work than I had
budgeted time for to produce a version for the free Unices. 

> They appear to be pretty ancient.

Yes. If you have anything never to offer, I'm sure we all would 
appreciate that. 

> I believe the C library, including sources, is shipped with the
> development tools package.  It certainly has no GPL'd code in it.

Right.

In fact I'm not sure which copyright or license it has - none of the
include nor source files carry any copyright information. 

I think that at least parts of the library and include files are required
components for the GCC source. Remember the GCC source is for "all third
parties", not only those who have bought the development tools. 

Egil
-- 
Email: egil@kvaleberg.no  Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899
Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
URL:   http://www.kvaleberg.com/           PGP: finger:egil@kvaleberg.com

What is the "Krister Lagerström code"?

Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> 
> In comp.dsp Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com> wrote:
> :>In comp.dsp Krister Lagerström <Krister.Lagerstrom@unidata.se> wrote:
> :>: Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> :>:>
> : [Snip]
> :>:> Someone else wrote:
> :>:> : It's based on GCC 2.3.3 and is available from Analog Devices.
> :>:>
> :>:> At what price?
> :>
> :>: $150 according to the local distributor here in Sweden...
> :>
> 
> : Uwe Bonnes <bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
> : [Snip]
> :>has anybody bought these sources and is willing to share?
> :>According to the GNU Licence this is legal!
> 
> : For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
> : company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
> : using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?
> 
> Hallo,
> 
> there are several reasons:
> - I only use it very rarely. If I would code for the 2106x every day,
> the 150$ (plus handling) would be justified.
> - According to the GNU Licence, the fare should only be for handling
> 150$ is quite high
> - Krister Lagerström code seem adapted and easier to apply.
> 
> Bye
> --
> Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
> 
> Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
> --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

-- 
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
mailto:shiva@CompuServe.COM
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/
http://sewnsurf.home.ml.org/
http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi (Death to Spam!)

Ken Ryan wrote:
> 
> Kenneth P. Turvey (kturvey@pug1.sprocketshop.com) wrote:
> : For $150, why don't you just pay them.  I hadn't ever heard of the
> : company before, but I'm pleased to hear that a commercial company is
> : using the GPL.  Why don't you support their work financially?
> 
> Analog Devices is a huge semiconductor firm.  They specialize in things like
> op-amps, A/D-D/A converters, and have a line of DSPs (to name a few).
> 
> Personally, I'll never understand why semiconductor companies charge many $$
> for their basic development tools (is this even consistent with GPL?).
> Isn't their goal to sell chips?  Won't more people use their cpus if tools
> were free?
> 
> Of course if your tools are very buggy a company then won't have any signifi-
> cant investment to keep them from switching to someone else...but even those
> with the best tools charge many $K.  (I'll never forget when TI's local rep
> told me how much the compilers for the brand-new 'C80 were ~$100K.  I just
> laughed...They've come way down since then of course, but are still expensive)
> 

I may be wrong but wasn't most of the Texas development tools until 
recently supplied by thirdparty companies? If it isn't ur company that
produces the tools u can't just give them away :) 

 
--Lasse 
---------------------------------------------------
Lasse Langwadt Christensen, M.Sc.EE (to be in 1999)
Applied Signal Processing and Implementation(ASPI)
Department of communications, Aalborg university 
lasse@ingenior.dk www.vip.cybercity.dk/~ccc32317

On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 04:40:19 GMT, Egil Kvaleberg <egil@kvaleberg.no> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:
>
>> There is nothing in the GPL that indicates the fare should be only for
>> handling.
>
>Did you ever read the GPL? It says:
>
>     You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy

1) The GPL does not apply at all to the owner of the copyright.  They may
charge whatever they wish for the program without regard to what the GPL
says.  The intent of the GPL is to protect the rights of future users of the
source code (including the purchasers) not restrict the rights of the owner of
the copyright.  In addition the GPL does not put an upper limit on this 
charge.  

The exact wording of the section from which you extracted that is as follows:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."	



>
>and:     
>
>     for a charge no more than your
>     cost of physically performing source distribution

This is a restriction on the amount that a distributor may charge to provide
you with source code after you have already purchased the binaries.  It only
applies when binaries have been distributed without source included and only
to those people or companies to which a binary distribution was made.  

[Snip]

-- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@pug1.SprocketShop.com> 

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government
inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty.
	-- George Washington

In article <slrn6qhoe5.6h7.kturvey@www.sprocketshop.com>,
Kenneth P. Turvey <kturvey@www.sprocketshop.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 04:40:19 GMT, Egil Kvaleberg <egil@kvaleberg.no> wrote:
>>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Kenneth P. Turvey wrote:
>>
>>> There is nothing in the GPL that indicates the fare should be only for
>>> handling.
>>
>>Did you ever read the GPL? It says:
>>
>>     You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy
>
>1) The GPL does not apply at all to the owner of the copyright.  They may
>charge whatever they wish for the program without regard to what the GPL
>says.  The intent of the GPL is to protect the rights of future users of the
>source code (including the purchasers) not restrict the rights of the owner of
>the copyright.  In addition the GPL does not put an upper limit on this 
>charge.  

Actually, it seems to me that g21k is derived from gcc version 2.3.3,
and as such section 2 of the GPL would apply, specifically:

	2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
	portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and
	copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms
	of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
	conditions:

		a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
		notices stating that you changed the files and the date
		of any change.

		b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
		publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
		derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
		licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
		under the terms of this License.

		c) If the modified program normally reads commands
		interactively when run, you must cause it, when started
		running for such interactive use in the most ordinary
		way, to print or display an announcement including an
		appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is
		no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a
		warranty) and that users may redistribute the program
		under these conditions, and telling the user how to
		view a copy of this License.  (Exception: if the
		Program itself is interactive but does not normally
		print such an announcement, your work based on the
		Program is not required to print an announcement.)


To me, this means that g21k must be licensed for no fee.  As has been
stated before, this would not apply to their assembler or linker as
they are not derived grom FSF source code.

I believe that at least at some point in the past, you could freely
download the binaries for all of these programs from ftp.analog.com,
however, the sources were not available there.

>
>The exact wording of the section from which you extracted that is as follows:
>
>"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
>you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."	
>
>
>
>>
>>and:     
>>
>>     for a charge no more than your
>>     cost of physically performing source distribution
>
>This is a restriction on the amount that a distributor may charge to provide
>you with source code after you have already purchased the binaries.  It only
>applies when binaries have been distributed without source included and only
>to those people or companies to which a binary distribution was made.  
>

But section 3 would apply since g21k fits the definition of "a work based on"
gcc 2.3.3.  Section 3 states:

	3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on
	it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under
	the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
	one of the following:

		a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding
		machine-readable source code, which must be distributed
		under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
		customarily used for software interchange; or,

		b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at
		least three years, to give any third party, for a
		charge no more than your cost of physically performing
		source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy
		of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
		under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
		customarily used for software interchange; or,

		c) Accompany it with the information you received as to
		the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
		(This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial
		distribution and only if you received the program in
		object code or executable form with such an offer, in
		accord with Subsection b above.)

I bought a SHARK EZ-KIT LITE to play around with, and it came with the
binaries for all the tools on a CDROM.  The CDROM contained a lot of
other information as well, but it was not completely full.  This means
that it would have been relatively simple to comply with 3a if Analog
Devices had wished to.  Since they have an FTP site, they could also
have made the source available for download and complied with 3b.

Instead they decided to go with 3b.  When I called and asked, I was
informed that I could get the source for the compiler, distributed on a
SUN TAR tape for $150.  Looking at it from one perspective, this does
not seem exceedingly high.  You have to pay for the media, someone's
time for making and verifying the tape, sending it out, etc.  I just
feel that they had several other alternatives.

I could probably also argue that since the executables on the CDROM were
for DOS and or Windows, that a SUN TAR tape was probably not the best
"medium for software interchange". 

Since I don't have easy access to a SUN tape drive, I never took advanatage
of their offer.  If they had made it available on CDROM or floppy, or something
else that I had access to, I would have probably bought it and did what
Egil has done. (By the way, thanks Egil)


I believe that while Analog Devices has obeyed the letter of the
GPL, they have violated the spirit.  If Analog Devices offered
their tools for Linux, this wouldn't bother me that much, I would have
gladly payed a little more to get the tools for Linux, and not really cared
if I got the source.  Perhaps with the source to g21k and some of the
freely available tools (like SHARCASM) I could get a decent development
environment under Linux.

Bill Lash
welash@xnet.com

welash@typhoon.xnet.com (William Lash) writes:

[g21k is derived from gcc]

> To me, this means that g21k must be licensed for no fee.

But not given away for free. They can take gcc, change it to make
g21k, and sell g21k source or binaries as expensive as they like. If
they sell the binaries alone, they must make the sources available for
a reasonable price. The source code's license must be GPL.

-- 
 Axel Boldt  **  axel@uni-paderborn.de  **  math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/