|
 |
clipka escreveu:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> ROFL!!
>
> That's a *really* good one...
>
> It's not *THEIR* software - it's the software of many, many, many contributors.
Yes, I'd like to say my software, but thought the pronoum their would
fit best to the situation, ambiguous as it is.
> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>
> The software authors? I doubt.
They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
of the FSF efforts. BTW, I believe the FSF is the copyright owner of
all gcc and other GNU code. I don't know if their old policy still
applies, but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats. How evil
is that, huh? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
