Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your 
> program has to be GPL'ed.

I'm pretty sure it does, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

Why would you need "a linking exception to the GPL" if the GPL didn't infect 
linked software?

> void main(void)
> {
> 	puts("do something here");
> 	/* Call a bunch of other functions */
> }
> 
> You write code and you use some/all of my code in your code.

If I'm using your "main", it's arguably your program. :-)

> My code is 
> released under the GPL, now yours must be as well because you're using 
> the source code I wrote in your code/product.

What if I take some of the "bunch of other functions" you wrote that you 
provided in a separate library, which I don't need to modify at all to 
invoke from my program?  That's what we're talking about.

> something similar to the Linux kernel's "tainted" flag with the compiler, 
> but pushing it to a new level.

Yes.

>> The gcc changes aren't aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "free
>> software". They're aimed at making sure the plug-ins are "copyleft".
> 
> Well, as the authors of gcc, surely they have the right to extend the 
> license terms in whatever way they see fit.

Sure. But if the license already covered plug-ins, they wouldn't need to 
extend it. The owners of the Linux copyright could change the license to say 
you're not allowed to run any proprietary software under Linux, and you 
can't run Linux on any machine that had ever had Windows installed, too. 
That doesn't mean it's a *good* thing.   I'm not denying their *ability* to 
do this.

-- 
   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