My only complaint about Python

[Christophe Cavalaria]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> 510046470588-0001 at t-online.de wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>Istvan Albert wrote:
>>>
>>>>In all fairness this is more the problem with Microsoft than
>>>>python. If they had a free fully-featured compiler then Python
>>>>would be compiled with that.
>>>
>>>
>>>They do.  MSC/C++ is now available at NO cost:
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> no cost is not the same as free
>> 
>> Klaus Schilling
> 
> <Goes Off The Reservation For A Moment>
> 
> "No Cost" is _exactly_ the same thing as "Free". It is not the same
> thing as "Open Source".
> 
> The debate is foolish in any case. If I use an GPLed compiler, even with
> the Lesser License, I have constraints placed upon what I may or may
> not do with the derivative work. If I use a commercial compiler, I do
> not have access to the source code _for the compiler_, but (usually)
> there are no constraints placed upon what I may do with the derivative
> work.

This is wrong on so many levels :
- gcc is GPL software and you don't have to GPL the source code of the
programs you compile with it. Doing so would place a restriction on the
user of the software which is exactly what the GPL is trying to prevent.
Using gcc to compile source code isn't creating a derivative work of gcc !
- if you modify the gcc source code and thus create a derivative work, you
don't have to distribute the changes, unless you distribute the new gcc
version.
- with a commercial closed source compiler, you can't do any derivative of
the compiler at all and thus you have less freedom than with a GPL
compiler.

If you can't see the difference between using a software and creating a
derivative work of that software ...