On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:53:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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?

This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.

>> 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. :-)

Yes.

>> 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.

If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my 
wishes about the use of the code.

>> 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.

Sure.  What ultimately may come out of the whole GCC kerfuffle is another 
compiler without those restrictions, if the folks over at the FSF insist 
on putting stupid restrictions in place.

Someone very likely will fork an older version of the code (pre-stupid-
restrictions) and "the market" (whatever that means) will decide whether 
the stupid restrictions are worth the hassle or not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message