I believe lang/icc* are not open-source nor 'free', right?

[Paul Seniura]

Hello,


>--- Original Message ---<

> At 3:34 PM -0600 3/18/04, Paul Seniura wrote:
> >I don't want to discuss Intel compilers on AMD or whatever
> >else the issues are in the previous threads.
> >
> >I am posting this on the -ports forum because I am asking
> >about lang/icc* strictly as ports and how I will use them
> >as ports.
> 
> The same way as you use ports which have been written for other
> commercial software packages.  We just provide ports to help
> the end user.  It is still up to the end user to understand
> the licensing requirements for the applications.
> 
> In the case of Intel's compiler, each individual user will have
> to decide if they qualify for Intel's license, and if Intel's
> compiler qualifies for what the user wants to do.
> 
> >I'm not saying get rid of the ports -- not at all.  Other
> >users need to be able to have the choices.
> >
> >Let me cite one circumstance that would stand out as a clear
> >violation:
> >   If, for example, in the future any part of the CD ISOs
> >   are built by 'icc', then I/we are forbidden to use them.
> 
> True for you, and true for a very large number of FreeBSD users
> and FreeBSD developers (as far as using the binaries in their
> real-world jobs).
> 
> >I will therefore absolutely oppose any such changes in FreeBSD
> >itself, in its default build configurations, in its (binary
> >or 'ready-to-run') distribution, and so on.
> 
> I think you are reacting too quickly to an event which has not
> happened, and is not likely to ever happen.  Many of us are
> very keen on understanding licenses, and we don't want to paint
> ourselves into a corner any more than we want to paint you into
> a corner...
> 
> At the same time, I think it is great that the icc port has been
> done.  For FreeBSD users who want to use 'icc', the port is a
> valuable option that makes their lives easier.


Thank you for explaining.

I am wanting very badly to try icc, anything to enhance the
Puny Pentium2 I'm forced to use at work (search the
archives for that term, I'm sure you'll come across my
longer explanations ;) . But the license shoots it down
fast. :(

The discussions on cvs-src list were almost making me
panic, so I had to say something quick from another
perspective.  My previous msg has header lines pointing to
the beginning of that thread, starting with the commits to
allow building kernel with icc.  Seems the other
respondents here haven't taken time to read them to
understand where I'm coming from.  They are/were actually
considering publicly distributing kernels built with icc --
something we are not privvy to use, as I understand the
license, and so must be clearly marked.

There are enough patches in the original projects to let
things compile using just about everything under the sun --
it makes one go crazy looking at all the code.  Let's hope
icc doesn't cause more trouble.

"The problem with standards is that there are too many."

  --  thx, Paul Seniura.