🚀 go-pugleaf

In my mind there's a big difference between the need to keep
g++ free and the need to keep gcc free.  There are a lot
compilers in the world, and the art is well enough known that
if all copies of gcc were to suddenly and mysteriously vanish
tomorrow, there would still be the possibility of creating a
new free C compiler.  (Indeed there exist other C compilers for
which source is available, though they are not free.)

If all copies of g++ were to suddenly and mysteriously vanish,
the world would be left with no free C++ compiler, and no reasonable
expectation of seeing one any time soon.  AT&T owns cfront, and
it is emphatically not free, not in any sense.  Lose g++ and you've
lost it all.  Given that libg++ is an integral part of g++, and
that is not available free from any other source, I think it 
is reasonable for people to accept restrictions on its use in order
that g++ may keep its momentum in development vis-a-vis AT&T.

When in the distant future someone comes up with a public domain
libg++ that is unencumbered by the GPL, then it is perhaps time
for GNU to re-think their policy.  Until then it is in their
best interests to ensure that g++ development efforts are kept
tightly bound to GNU.  Don't like those restrictions?  You
know who to write the check to for the competition....

--Ed

Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept.
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu