nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>> 2) Don't release code which is based on or interfacing with GPL'ed code.
>> How come I can write code that interfaces with Linux without violating the
>> GPL, but I can't write a plug-in for GCC without violating the GPL?
> 
> You're beginning to run into contradictions there.  Weren't you the one saying
> the GPL doesn't enforce this behaviour? 

Yes. Why is "somebody" telling me a choice is to not release code that isn't 
based on or interfacing with GPL code? In other words, the implication of 
the text above is that the only way to release a gcc plug-in is via GPL. But 
that isn't true. It's what FSF wants to be true, but it isn't true. Were it 
true, it would be the same situation as applications on Linux.

> That the measures taken are exactly
> because the GPL alone would allow for closed plugins?

Ding ding ding! Yes, exactly. I'm pointing out that no, the GPL alone allows 
for closed plug-ins in exactly the same way that GPL allows for closed 
applications running under Linux.

FSF wants to figure out a technological way of forcing others to only GPL 
code that runs as a plug-in to gcc. I feel that's over the top. I know it's 
their right to do whatever the f__k they please with their code. I don't 
believe it's the case they can enforce that thru their current license. I 
believe that them using technological means to prevent closed plug-ins from 
being written is similar to the technological means TiVo uses to prevent 
your code from running on their hardware, which FSF has complained about, 
hence making the FSF hypocritical. Does that make it clear?

> Other than that, you're right.  I believe gcc developers see plugins in the same
> light as dynamic libs:  app + libs form a larger work and if one of the
> components is GPL, the other should follow or not use it at all.

Except that they're wrong, depending on what you mean by "should". If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF would like that to be the case", then yes. If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF thinks that's already the case", then no.

-- 
   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