http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins

Some of the stuff in the wiki sounded like DRM.

"A gcc-based scripting interpreter could by default check for a mandatory
license statement (header) in every source file, so that "stock gcc" could
deny running plugins (scripts) with a non-matching license header/marker
telling the user that stock gcc only runs plugin scripts covered by the
GPL"

"Couldn't the plugin interface require a copyrighted passphrase to be sent
by the plugin when it registeres, and the passphrase can then be licensed
under the GPL. Thus, plugins that want to interface with an official FSF
gcc will have to be GPLed in order to talk to the plugin interface, and we
don't need to tinker with the runtime licensing."

What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
to make sure plugins are GPL??

Post a reply to this message