|
 |
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> extension for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
>
> This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler.
Down to the devious plugin architecture?! I think Duke Nukem Forever
and HURD are released first, or Wine 2.0 is Vista compatible.
> it may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it to
> work for gcc also.
Why? You don't like the damned GPL stuff, remember? Why help spread
it? Why not tell your users that if they want said functionality
they'll need to use other, possibly better and unrestricted compiler?
>> So, why would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
>
> And my Linux application wouldn't exist if I didn't have Linux to run it
> under. Does that mean my application is GPLed? My apache module wouldn't
> exist if apache wasn't around. Does that mean my module is GPLed? My
> PSQL stored procedures wouldn't exist if PSQL wasn't around. That
> doesn't make my stored procedures GPLed.
Of course, none of those projects require your code to be GPLed. GCC
will, and not by the GPL.
BTW, all your examples do not constitute a single program running in the
same process space, they are very different from app and lib or plugin.
> If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, would
> you find software companies like Adobe porting their software to it?
You talk like as if the plugin is an external app running in a "gcc
kernel space".
> You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use this
> compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us." As you say,
> people don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if they did.
GCC doesn't say that, so I don't know how the example is any pertinent.
> I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, they
> wind up acting like monopolists.
Like in areas where they are actually the original developers of GNU
software? Yeah, sound as bad as Apache...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
