Hello, everyone!

I was going to download the free c++ compiler, but when I read the license, it kind of scared me:

"The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly. No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software. Do not use this software for life critical applications. .. etc."

Is this all just legal crap so you don't sue the company if something bad happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler vs. when you use another compiler?

How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to compile?

*Just curious*

Thanks.
Creature

"Creature" <Creature_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dkjcag$2dcs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I was going to download the free c++ compiler, but when I read the
license, it
> kind of scared me:
>
> "The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone
testing
> and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate after
December
> 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly. No
support or
> maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install or distribute
the
> Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software. Do not use this software for life critical applications. ..
etc."
>
> Is this all just legal crap so you don't sue the company if something bad happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this
compiler
> vs. when you use another compiler?

Basically it means that you assume responsibility for programs you develop with DMC++.

> How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to
compile?

To my knowledge, it never has.

Note that the license does not contain things like "you can't publish benchmarks" or other nonsense that other compiler vendors insert.

Creature wrote:
> Hello, everyone!
> 
> I was going to download the free c++ compiler, but when I read the license, it
> kind of scared me:
> 
> "The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone testing
> and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate after December
> 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly. No support or
> maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install or distribute the
> Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental
> software. Do not use this software for life critical applications. .. etc."
> 
> Is this all just legal crap so you don't sue the company if something bad
> happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there
> really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler
> vs. when you use another compiler?
> 
> How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to compile?
> 
> *Just curious*
> 
> Thanks.
> Creature

Used it daily for 10-15 years and it never has...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

But as for me and my household, we shall use Mozilla...
www.mozilla.org

In article <dkjcag$2dcs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Creature says...
>
>Hello, everyone!
>
>I was going to download the free c++ compiler, but when I read the license, it kind of scared me:
>
>"The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly. No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software. Do not use this software for life critical applications. .. etc."
>
>Is this all just legal crap so you don't sue the company if something bad happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler vs. when you use another compiler?
>
>How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to compile?
>
>*Just curious*
>
>Thanks.
>Creature

I love this type of question: I was draggin a world-class Phd in the science across the bottom of the Crystal Blue Lagoon at Camp Code Puppies and having been warned b4 we went down into the abyss for a few rounds that:

'....all caveats apply'

I responded 'except as noted in the caveat correction manual'

Over the Turkey, I was fortunate enough to engage 'an informed person' from Dell in the same type of foray, except that this operator was much more of a business type / rather than a techie.  I had an Office of Special Investigations Invisible Op's team member from the last 4th memebers of the Mongolian Empire's 124 Bourne Shell team - you only heard 120 were sent if you let the news feed feed your brain cells - watching, waiting for me to make the slightest waiver from the approved manual.

In the simple, you ask a question that cannot be answered.

In short, if you are writing or intend to write software that in any remote shade or degree has bearing on human health, life, welfare or safety ~ then the caveats of the licenes apply full-force, verbatim without avenue of escapade or reasonable hope of remorse....

Next step down from that, I suggest you read Mr. Gerstner's Elephant Book.

Does the license apply ? You damn right Gertrude or Gestophlous or whatever it is.

>Is this all just legal crap - define Crap, sounds like a good name for a utility I am trying to write, digs throug a text file for anything I don't like.

>so you don't sue the company - What company ? See 'Case Against Patents' at ninja.com

>if something bad - $2,000 worth of aluminum wheels on a rockHead's shiny car when (gender-neutral 3 pers pronoun) will blow your skull into the next block if you make eye contact sounds to me like an immediate socital issue which bespeaks a need for you to

#define havoc char*p;do{*p++;}while(true);

And see what it does to your computer b4 trying to decicde whether it has a really a high probobility of causing something to go wrong when you use this compiler to produce a program that will be used on another person's computer in an environemt where Rep. Tom DeLay is getting sued, and so can your dog next door be sued. Be though it may they wouldn't like being called a dog.

This is called testing. Is done every day - no matter who the compiler author - and reasonable test suites invlolve deeper knowledge than is displayed by your putting the question up in open fora.  You can do like I did and spend $545.00 for a compiler, then later decide dm is better and start using it.  You can get a Java compiler just for the patience to download it. You can *EASILY* spend $10,000 for a compiler.

>happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler vs. when you use another compiler?

This is the part of the question I really love, see
http://www.docdubya.com/belvedere/cpp/question.htm
(turn your speakers down first)

It's just so damn cool to be able to tear through 65,000 lines kernel source code, and know where you are at by slowing the scoll down for a few hundred milliseconds so you can recognize where you are at by the patterns going by... but with this or any other compiler:

*the only surefire test will be quashed by the sales department and will be convertd into a suefire - all effort goes down like the Airane rocket,then every body gets sued for everything*

Are you doing this for fun, or do you really have a project on the board ?

Nick

In article <dkjcag$2dcs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Creature says...
>
>Hello, everyone!
>
>I was going to download the free c++ compiler, but when I read the license, it kind of scared me:
>
>"The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly. No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software. Do not use this software for life critical applications. .. etc."
>
>Is this all just legal crap so you don't sue the company if something bad happens when it's unlikley that it ever will but just in case, or is there really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler vs. when you use another compiler?
>
>How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to compile?
>
>*Just curious*
>
>Thanks.
>Creature

Creature,

Your question, is this all a bunch of legal crap hoovers in my mind like a saucer out of a B-grade late night "Earth Invasion" movie.

Here, the comments just before a func() in 65,000 keystrokes of my
own authorship attest to just how seriously some of us take 'Legal Crap'.

////////++++++++++begin dictionary functions++++++++++////////

/*=======change to return tri-state decision::========*/
/*======= (+ eq_ hits) (- eq_ misses) (null eq_ uncertain)   =========*/
// Maybe should try vector<string> dictionary;

The comments do not reflect the fact that it's legal to give someone a bunch of worrisome, stiff legalese - and I ask you, if you had just gotten out of Law School, your sponsors in the hole for a cool $100,000 to pay for all the red Ferrari's and Brooks Brother's suits - what could you do with:

#define Onions Opinions
/*
* Onions expresses in this document are only opinions.
* There is no license, express or implied, to any
* intellectual property rights by reading this
* document. Except as noted in general terms and
* conditions of the Jargon File as maintained by
* Eric S. Raymond <br>
* &lt; esr  ampersand thyrsus dot com &gt; <br>
* there is no liability whatsoever under any doctrine
* or umbrella - whether at the bench of law or under
* the test of common sense.
*
* Reader assumes the risk - whether for bad Onion harvest
* or fitful failure of sleepless nights - according to the
* legal theories in force where the document is read.
*
* Further: Author disclaims any express or implied warranty,
* consequent to sale and/or use of ideas derived from ideas
* explored in this document.
*
* Tangible products intended for use in medical , life-saving, or
* life-sustaining applications require review by engineers
* licensed in the jurisdiction where such equipment may be used,
* and are beyond the skills under discussion.
*/


If you had spent the last few years practicing chewing up such stuff with others in the same position, with seasoned professionals watching and guiding the arena ?

You'd go looking for who wrote it, if they had any money. Otherwise, you'd go looking for the next one.

Think about it, people with the red Ferrari's and Brooks Brother's suits to pay for will - e.g. S.C.O. et. al. v Emperor Penguin

SCO is trying to get $3 billion from IBM for party money - you can figure out that if there were no money to get, the people with the red Ferrari's and Brooks Brother's suits would move on.

>How often does this thing cause havoc in the program you're trying to compile?
....   and
>is there
>really a high probobility w/ something going wrong when you use this compiler
>vs. when you use another compiler?

With some things, you don't take risks.