According to Orlando Llanes:
Thanks for the help with the port statements! I figure that $define'ing them will save time because of no stack operations (right? :}).
Right. (Except the `volatile' problem Juki pointed out, GPC should do all this automatically with `-O3', but until that day, you can work around using the (*$define foo(bar) ... *) kludge.)
I was looking at the FAQ again, and saw the license, I can see that GPC can be as big as GCC, but the problem I have is that what I want with it conflicts with it's license, I want to develop computer games commercial/shareware.
This does not conflict with the license at all. Myself am planning to make a living with programs I will write with GNU Pascal. (At the moment, I still write most of them with Borland Pascal, but I already sold one written with GPC ... :)
I will be writing my own Game Libraries, and am willing to make them free under GNU to develop commercially or for education.
Be welcome to do that! :) I suggest to put it under the LGPL, not the ordinary GPL, because then it's easier to use it with programs you don't want to release the source.
* It is NOT required that you publish the source of your programs when using an LGPLed library; when using a GPLed library, this IS required unless stated otherwise explicitly in its license.
* When using an LGPLed library, you must ensure that the client can modify (e.g. upgrade) the library, and your program will work with the new version. The easiest way to achieve this is to link it dynamically.
* When using a GPLed library, you still have the possibility to write a free (GPLed) program which cooperates with your own program. Then you can sell both. (It's OKAY to charge a fee - as much as you wish and your clients are willing to pay - for the free program, but the clients must be allowed to redistribute the free program.)
(While I was first shocked by the thought that I would have to release the source of some of my programs, I meanwhile think that the idea is not that bad: It makes it easier to fix bugs when the client has the source!)
But what puts me in the spot is that the license in a way says I can't develop comemrcially? Are there exceptions or exclusions?
The definitions of "commercial" and "free" software don't exclude each other. You are welcome to distribute free software, e.g. GNU Pascal itself, for a fee. There are companies like Cygnus Solutions making a living this way.
For details about "selling free software", see
http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/philosophy/selling.html
mirrored in Germany as
http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu/philosophy/selling.html
but - once again - it is NO PROBLEM to use GNU Pascal for writing non-free software. I only recommend to read the licenses of all libraries you are using carefully - including the GNU Pascal run-time library. (... which you should do anyway, regardless which compiler and libraries you are going to use.)
Greetings,
Peter
Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]