nemesis wrote:
> worry, you can still license the produced code any way you wish.  But the
> plugin architecture is what deserved the attention of the updating. ;)

Now here's a question for ya:

"""
However, if you used GCC in conjunction with GPL-incompatible software 
during the process of transforming high-level code to low-level code, that 
would not be an Eligible Compilation Process. This would happen if, for 
example, you used GCC with a proprietary plugin.
"""

Let's look at a couple of scenarios:

I modify gcc, but I never distribute my modifications. Can I license the 
resulting "Target Code" under a proprietary license?

I buy a proprietary plug-in that does something like (say) Purify, or 
performance measurements, or helps with debugging, by modifying the 
intermediate representation to include calls to the libraries used by the 
plug-in. I then run my code, improve the performance, fix the bugs, then 
recompile without the plug-in. Doesn't sound like the final release-mode 
executable is restricted.

How about if I develop my own proprietary plug-in that I never distribute. 
Is the target code still covered?

How about if I develop a plug-in, release it dual-licensed under 
"binary-only" for $100 a copy without permission to distribute, or under GPL 
and sell the first copy for $1,000,000 under GPL? It's available under GPL, 
now, so that makes it Eligible, right, so the code created by the plug-in is 
not GPLed.

What if the plug-in outputs stuff that compiles? It's not intermediate code. 
What if I have a plug-in that outputs LISP code that does the same thing as 
the C you input? Or which lets you input LISP which can then get translated 
down to executable code. Is LISP an "intermediate language"?

I don't think this is going to do what I think they think it's going to do.

-- 
   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