Markus Mayer wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement is
> just that it is stable.)

Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly. I've done so
with both and it's not hard. ISTR I had to adjust a few declarations and
names to avoid collision with the built-in version but the result was an
arg parser that was completely portable between Unix and Windows. Just
remember to consider the issue of license (GNU vs BSD).

HT

On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
wrote in article
:

> Markus Mayer wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>> is just that it is stable.)
>
> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.

If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
program under GPL too.

santosh wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
> wrote in article
> :
>
>> Markus Mayer wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>> is just that it is stable.)
>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>
> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
> program under GPL too.
>

No. Only unmodified part he used.
He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code licensed
with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source, and mention
it somewhere.

FrenKy writes:
>santosh wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
>> wrote in article
>> :
>>
>>> Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>>> is just that it is stable.)
>>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>>
>> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
>> program under GPL too.
>>
>
>No. Only unmodified part he used.
>He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code licensed
>with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source, and mention
>it somewhere.


This is incorrect.

If he uses the GPL code in a program he doesn't distribute (i.e. just uses
himself), he need do nothing.

If he uses the GPL code in a program he distributes in binary form to anyone,
he must GPL his entire program. (LGPL code can be linked with a binary
without this effect). There are grey areas specifically around dynamically
loaded code, specifically kernel modules, as to where the viral nature of
the GPL applies.

As part of GPL'ing his program, he must offer the source to anyone to whom
he distributes the binary (but he is not required to offer it to anyone who
asks).

scott

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:13:55 +0100, FrenKy wrote:
>santosh wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>>> is just that it is stable.)
>>>
>>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>>
>> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
>> program under GPL too.
>
> No. Only unmodified part he used.
> He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code
> licensed with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source,
> and mention it somewhere.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong about the GPL, and santosh is right.
Please, reread the GPLv2 or later versions, and pay special attention to
the explanation of "derivative work" and "mere aggregation" in the
license text.

Giorgos

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:13:55 +0100, FrenKy wrote:
>> santosh wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>>>> is just that it is stable.)
>>>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>>>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>>> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
>>> program under GPL too.
>> No. Only unmodified part he used.
>> He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code
>> licensed with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source,
>> and mention it somewhere.
>
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong about the GPL, and santosh is right.

Santosh might be (and is) "right" but he started yet another @*&^$ GPL
flame war by snipping the perfectly clear part of my post that said
"Just remember to consider the issue of license (GNU vs BSD)". How clear
does a person have to be? If you want GPL, use the GNU stuff. If not,
use BSD. Enough already, this is about argument parsing, not GPL.

HT

Am 07.11.2007 15:18 postulierte Henry Townsend folgendes:
> Markus Mayer wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement is
>> just that it is stable.)
>
> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly. I've done so
> with both and it's not hard. ISTR I had to adjust a few declarations and
> names to avoid collision with the built-in version but the result was an
> arg parser that was completely portable between Unix and Windows. Just
> remember to consider the issue of license (GNU vs BSD).
>
> HT

This is what I have actually done in the meantime according to a hint in
comp.lang.c - Thanks nevertheless!

Best regards,
Markus

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:50:44 -0500, Henry Townsend wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:13:55 +0100, FrenKy wrote:
>>>santosh wrote:
>>>>On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>>>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>>>>> is just that it is stable.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>>>>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>>>>
>>>> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
>>>> program under GPL too.
>>>
>>> No. Only unmodified part he used.
>>> He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code
>>> licensed with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source,
>>> and mention it somewhere.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you are wrong about the GPL, and santosh is right.
>
> Santosh might be (and is) "right" but he started yet another @*&^$ GPL
> flame war by snipping the perfectly clear part of my post that said
> "Just remember to consider the issue of license (GNU vs BSD)". How clear
> does a person have to be? If you want GPL, use the GNU stuff. If not,
> use BSD. Enough already, this is about argument parsing, not GPL.

I know, Henry. I wasn't implying that what _you_ wrote was wrong. It
was, in fact, pretty solid and good advice, AFAICT

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:50:44 -0500, Henry Townsend wrote:
>> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:13:55 +0100, FrenKy wrote:
>>>> santosh wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 07 Nov 2007 7:48 pm Henry Townsend
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Markus Mayer wrote:
>>>>>>> Any chances that there is a similar thing to *nix's getopt() under
>>>>>>> windows? (It doesn't actually have to be too nifty, the requirement
>>>>>>> is just that it is stable.)
>>>>>> Better yet - just go to the GNU or BSD sources and pull out their
>>>>>> getopt.[ch] files and compile them into your code directly.
>>>>> If he used source under a GPL license he might have to place his own
>>>>> program under GPL too.
>>>> No. Only unmodified part he used.
>>>> He can have whatever license he wants, but if he used some code
>>>> licensed with GPL, he has to provide the source for the used source,
>>>> and mention it somewhere.
>>> I'm sorry, but you are wrong about the GPL, and santosh is right.
>> Santosh might be (and is) "right" but he started yet another @*&^$ GPL
>> flame war by snipping the perfectly clear part of my post that said
>> "Just remember to consider the issue of license (GNU vs BSD)". How clear
>> does a person have to be? If you want GPL, use the GNU stuff. If not,
>> use BSD. Enough already, this is about argument parsing, not GPL.
>
> I know, Henry. I wasn't implying that what _you_ wrote was wrong. It
> was, in fact, pretty solid and good advice, AFAICT

Understood, and of course my irritation was really directed at the above
named person. I just expressed it in a response to your part in the thread.

HT