nemesis wrote:
> That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc plugins.

No it's not. Why would that be the crux with gcc plug-ins and not with 
applications that run on top of Linux?  Couldn't Linux just as easily use 
the same sorts of techniques they're talking about for applications?

Sure. Because there's lots of places using GCC outside of Linux, and few 
people who will be writing plug-ins for it. But there are few places using 
Linux, and they want lots of people writing closed applications for it.

It's commercial, but instead of you giving them money, they want you to give 
them your code. We solved the barter problem several thousand years ago with 
the invention of currency.

> It's a matter of perspective, of course.  They could very well allow for non-GPL
> closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to.  It's their
> software and their terms.  

Certainly. They're specifically trying to come up with a mechanism *not* 
based on copyright to restrict the authoring of code that implements gcc 
plug-ins, because the GPL cannot be made to apply, since plug-ins don't 
necessarily incorporate any copyrighted code.

> Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
> most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
> and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Just so you know, such statements make you sound like you're saying "I have 
no actual argument, so I'll start with the ad homeniem attacks and hope you 
hate microsoft as much as I do so you agree unthinkingly."

-- 
   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