nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Your freedom to not be punched in the nose restricts my freedom to 
>> punch you in the nose.
> 
> I feel that freedom is in risk right now. ;)

Not at all.

>> Then what freedom does it add to the author to force his plug-in to be 
>> open source and licensed under the GPL?
> 
> The freedom to use the gcc infrastructure for the benefit of his plugin.

No. He could use the gcc infrastructure for his plug-in regardless of how he 
licenses his plug-in.  He could also use the gcc infrastructure for the 
benefit of his plug-in were gcc licensed with MIT licensing.

In other words, you're taking the conclusion ("the plug-in is licensed with 
GPL") and assuming it's a prerequisite. That's called "begging the question."

My question is, what benefit does it bestow upon the plug-in author to 
*require* a GPL license of the plug-in? If I want to release my plug-in in 
object only, how does it benefit *me* (or *you*) to say "your only choice is 
GPL or not write it at all."  Why is it a benefit to people who would want 
to use my plug-in for me to not write it because it would cost me too much?

>> How does that benefit anyone who wants to use the plug-in without 
>> modification?
> 
> The GPL allows for unrestricted *use*, for any means.

Right. That's my point. Why would GCC require a plug-in author to give it a 
particular license?  It wouldn't be any different from the Linux kernel 
enforcing only running apps that were GPLed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message