SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Jean-Pierre Radl » Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:00:00



Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
| Date :02:29:57 PM Wed 13 Nov 1996 GMT
|
| Are you (or not as the case may be) hinting that getting the free OSR5
| disks, and nabbing their libraries, and running GCC would all work???

From the Free Unix CDROM, you can install the DevSys, with the DevSys
license you got along with the RunTime License.
Or you could just install the libraries and headers.
And to either scenario, you can then add the gcc compiler (from the
Skunkware project).

--

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Jean-Pierre Radl » Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
|
|
| ----------

| > Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
| > | Date :02:29:57 PM Wed 13 Nov 1996 GMT
| > |
| > | Are you (or not as the case may be) hinting that getting the free OSR5
| > | disks, and nabbing their libraries, and running GCC would all work???
| >
| > From the Free Unix CDROM, you can install the DevSys, with the DevSys
| > license you got along with the RunTime License.
| > Or you could just install the libraries and headers.
| > And to either scenario, you can then add the gcc compiler (from the
| > Skunkware project).
|
| Thats what I was trying to say (or rather get Bela to say it).

The subject of this thread concerns 3.2v4.2, so the Free Unix CDROM,
which is 3.2v5.0.2, is quite irrelevant.

--


 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Bill Walk » Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:00:00


: Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
: | Date :02:29:57 PM Wed 13 Nov 1996 GMT
: |
: | Are you (or not as the case may be) hinting that getting the free OSR5
: | disks, and nabbing their libraries, and running GCC would all work???

: From the Free Unix CDROM, you can install the DevSys, with the DevSys
: license you got along with the RunTime License.
: Or you could just install the libraries and headers.
: And to either scenario, you can then add the gcc compiler (from the
: Skunkware project).

This should work.  I had a little better luck by running the "fixincludes"
from the gcc distrubution to repair the header files.  I then
copied them to the gcc-lib/include hierarchy.  Runs like a champ.

Incidentally, the cc compiler from the OSR5 is no dog, either.  I'm
just a gcc fan.  I am disappointed that the cc compiler doesn't seem
able to compile gcc.  That problem cropped up on another box, in
another era, with another SCO compiler.  It was fixed by acquiring
another, later, version of cc from SCO.  The "internal error" generated
during the building of gcc, specificially when xgcc is used to build
"stage1 and stage2" compilers, seems to be a problem with how the
native cc compiler builds the libgcc.a --- someone please correct
me if I'm wrong.

I can envision that if the gcc compiler is used for purposes other than
those covered by the Free SCO license, there may be some
room for arguing that this should not be done.  For the record, my
gcc (and g++ and g77) is on the Free SCO box, and that box
is being used properly under the terms of the license.  

BW

--
Bill Walker

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Samuel Liddicot » Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:00:00



Quote:> I can envision that if the gcc compiler is used for purposes other than
> those covered by the Free SCO license, there may be some
> room for arguing that this should not be done.  For the record, my
> gcc (and g++ and g77) is on the Free SCO box, and that box
> is being used properly under the terms of the license.  

No doubt.  I certainly wont be doing it due to lack of a spare PC.  I wish
in my heart of hearts that SCO would see what can be nearly done, and
relent about the old dev sys, (soon to be unsupported I hear), but I heard
that a licensing agreement prevents them form doing this.

Ahh well.

--
Sam Liddicott                   |   Nothing I say is to be attributed as |
Campbell Scientific Ltd.        | a company statement or representation. |
Campbell Park, 80 Hathern Road, *----------------------------------------+
Shepshed, Leic. United Kingdom. LE12 9AL        Phone: +44 (0) 1509 601141

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Samuel Liddicot » Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:00:00




> Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
> |
> |
> | ----------

> | > Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
> | > | Date :02:29:57 PM Wed 13 Nov 1996 GMT
> | > |
> | > | Are you (or not as the case may be) hinting that getting the free
OSR5
> | > | disks, and nabbing their libraries, and running GCC would all
work???
> | >
> | > From the Free Unix CDROM, you can install the DevSys, with the DevSys
> | > license you got along with the RunTime License.
> | > Or you could just install the libraries and headers.
> | > And to either scenario, you can then add the gcc compiler (from the
> | > Skunkware project).
> |
> | Thats what I was trying to say (or rather get Bela to say it).

> The subject of this thread concerns 3.2v4.2, so the Free Unix CDROM,
> which is 3.2v5.0.2, is quite irrelevant.

Well no, its not.  

If you've got 3.2v4.2 and are sad because you can't compile, get the Free
Unix and sneakily (at home for non-profit of course) compile the stuff for
whatever format old SCO uses and then bring it back to work the next day!

Or.., as I said, you never know, but the missing headers might be the same
as those in the Free dev kit, in which case just nick those!

--
Sam Liddicott                   |   Nothing I say is to be attributed as |
Campbell Scientific Ltd.        | a company statement or representation. |
Campbell Park, 80 Hathern Road, *----------------------------------------+
Shepshed, Leic. United Kingdom. LE12 9AL        Phone: +44 (0) 1509 601141

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Jean-Pierre Radl » Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:00:00


Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
|
|

| > I can envision that if the gcc compiler is used for purposes other than
| > those covered by the Free SCO license, there may be some
| > room for arguing that this should not be done.  For the record, my
| > gcc (and g++ and g77) is on the Free SCO box, and that box
| > is being used properly under the terms of the license.  
|
| No doubt.  I certainly wont be doing it due to lack of a spare PC.  I wish
| in my heart of hearts that SCO would see what can be nearly done, and
| relent about the old dev sys, (soon to be unsupported I hear), but I heard
| that a licensing agreement prevents them form doing this.
|
| Ahh well.

I doubt that anything in the licensing agreement that SCO has for the
Microsoft compiler on SCO releases prior to 3.2v5. *prevents* SCO from
giving it away.  Since SCO has to pay a fee for each copy of this
compiler that goes out the door, it would seem to be a rational
buiness decision by SCO to not affect its cash flow in this manner.

By contrast, the compiler code in the OSR 5 releases has been SCO's
property since it acquired it from Novell last year.

People have asked why FreeUnix doesn't include a free Merge license, and
the explanation is the same: Merge is licensed from Platinum (used to be
from Locus), and once again, a royalty is due for every copy delivered.

--

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Tim Ruckl » Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:00:00





} > Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:

} > | > Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
} > | > | Date :02:29:57 PM Wed 13 Nov 1996 GMT
} > | > |
} > | > | Are you (or not as the case may be) hinting that getting the free OSR5
} > | > | disks, and nabbing their libraries, and running GCC would all work???
} > | >
} > | > From the Free Unix CDROM, you can install the DevSys, with the DevSys
} > | > license you got along with the RunTime License.
} > | > Or you could just install the libraries and headers.
} > | > And to either scenario, you can then add the gcc compiler (from the
} > | > Skunkware project).
} > |
} > | Thats what I was trying to say (or rather get Bela to say it).
} >
} > The subject of this thread concerns 3.2v4.2, so the Free Unix CDROM,
} > which is 3.2v5.0.2, is quite irrelevant.
}
} Well no, its not.  

Well yes, I'm afraid it is.

Quote:} If you've got 3.2v4.2 and are sad because you can't compile, get the Free
} Unix and sneakily (at home for non-profit of course) compile the stuff for
} whatever format old SCO uses and then bring it back to work the next day!

That doesn't get him a Free 3.2v4.2 commercial DevSys, which I *think* was
the original question.

Quote:} Or.., as I said, you never know, but the missing headers might be the same
} as those in the Free dev kit, in which case just nick those!

This a) won't work and b) would be illegal in any case.

Regards,

Tim

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Tim Ruckl » Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:00:00



}

} > I can envision that if the gcc compiler is used for purposes other than
} > those covered by the Free SCO license, there may be some
} > room for arguing that this should not be done.

The fact that you're using gcc to compile on the Free OpenServer system
does not change the license of that system: the resulting works must be
only for educational or non-commerical use.  The license is quite clear
about this, and the argument would be unequivocal.

Quote:} > For the record, my gcc (and g++ and g77) is on the Free SCO box, and
} > that box is being used properly under the terms of the license.  
}
} No doubt.  I certainly wont be doing it due to lack of a spare PC.  I wish
} in my heart of hearts that SCO would see what can be nearly done, and
} relent about the old dev sys, (soon to be unsupported I hear), but I heard
} that a licensing agreement prevents them form doing this.
}
} Ahh well.

Most 3.2v4.2-based integrated products will continue to be sold and
supported (though no new features) for the time being.  There are in
fact two (legal) options: buy the 3.2v4.2 DevSys, or upgrade to OpenServer
Release 5 (which has the libraries and headers which gcc needs). The
latter may actually be a better deal in the long run.

Regards,

Tim

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Tim Ri » Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:00:00


: Samuel Liddicott propounded certain bytes, to wit:
: |
[snip]
: | No doubt.  I certainly wont be doing it due to lack of a spare PC.  I wish
: | in my heart of hearts that SCO would see what can be nearly done, and
: | relent about the old dev sys, (soon to be unsupported I hear), but I heard
: | that a licensing agreement prevents them form doing this.
: |
: | Ahh well.

: I doubt that anything in the licensing agreement that SCO has for the
: Microsoft compiler on SCO releases prior to 3.2v5. *prevents* SCO from
: giving it away.  Since SCO has to pay a fee for each copy of this
: compiler that goes out the door, it would seem to be a rational
: buiness decision by SCO to not affect its cash flow in this manner.

But couldn't they relese the headers & libraries from the OS3 DevSys
without paying royalties? Then people could use the GNU compilers.
The microsoft compiler isn't any good for a lot of the code on the
net anyway.

: By contrast, the compiler code in the OSR 5 releases has been SCO's
: property since it acquired it from Novell last year.

: People have asked why FreeUnix doesn't include a free Merge license, and
: the explanation is the same: Merge is licensed from Platinum (used to be
: from Locus), and once again, a royalty is due for every copy delivered.

: --

--
--
Tim Rice        Multitalents            707 887-1469

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by Samuel Liddicot » Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:00:00





> } > The subject of this thread concerns 3.2v4.2, so the Free Unix CDROM,
> } > which is 3.2v5.0.2, is quite irrelevant.
> }
> } Well no, its not.  

> Well yes, I'm afraid it is.

Well, at the risk of making myself unpopular, no its not.

The fact that I was wrong when I said the header files from the free dev
sys might work under 3.2v4.2 doesn't make the post irrelevant to the
orginal question, which as said concerns 3.2v4.2

Quote:> } If you've got 3.2v4.2 and are sad because you can't compile, get the
Free
> } Unix and sneakily (at home for non-profit of course) compile the stuff
for
> } whatever format old SCO uses and then bring it back to work the next
day!

> That doesn't get him a Free 3.2v4.2 commercial DevSys, which I *think*
was
> the original question.

Well no, but I expect he wanted one to compile with.  I hope there's no
harm in suggesting other solutions in case one does the trick for him.  And
I don't think he was particularly after a commercial dev system.

And yes, point taken, it would probably be quite illegal if it worked.

--
Sam Liddicott                   |   Nothing I say is to be attributed as |
Campbell Scientific Ltd.        | a company statement or representation. |
Campbell Park, 80 Hathern Road, *----------------------------------------+
Shepshed, Leic. United Kingdom. LE12 9AL        Phone: +44 (0) 1509 601141

 
 
 

SCO 3.2v4.2 DevSys

Post by John R MacMill » Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:00:00


|But couldn't they relese the headers & libraries from the OS3 DevSys
|without paying royalties?

No.  The 3.2v4.2 headers and libraries contain Microsoft code.