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

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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
> > only you who can do that.
>
> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then. Thanks.

Don't be naive, Darren.  He's telling it's your choice to write and release a
plugin for GCC under the GPL.  You can simply give them the finger, fork it,
start from scratch or use the intel compiler.

Which BTW is free for *use* (but not modification) as long as it isn't *used*
for commercial work, like the free compiler from Microsoft too.  Which reminds
me that this is an important distinction for the word *use* indeed.  Use of
software always reminds me of users, not software developers trying to "use" it
as the secret engine of their closed app...

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4983674a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code?
It's
> > only you who can do that.

> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then.
Thanks.

Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code, but don't want
to be bothered by respecting the licensing terms of the authors who came
before you, created that piece of code you find irresistible to use, and
GPL'ed their work. Don't know how I can help you there, but here are your
options:

1) Write your own code from the ground up. Pick whichever license makes you
happy.
2) Don't release code which is based on or interfacing with GPL'ed code. You
can still use it for personal needs.
3) Respect the GPL license of the authors whose code you are using, and
contribute your code as GPL.
4) Don't write any code at all, become a used car salesman.

Notice how "have your cake and eat it too" is not a legitimate option.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49833f8f$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".

> I don't think so. I think there's a very easy metric.
>
> If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B, but
> there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B is
more
> free than A.

From your POV. From the POV of all developers taken as a whole, or from the
POV of the original authors, code that's infectuously free may be more free
than code that's currently free.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>> No, I don't. How is it even possible for *others* to GPL *your* code? It's
>>> only you who can do that.
>> OK, I'll assume you didn't read the link that started the thread, then. Thanks.
> 
> Don't be naive, Darren. 

I'm not. I'm saying that if I write a plug-in for GCC and release it, it'll 
break if it's not GPLed. I don't know how that isn't the FSF making me 
release my code as GPLed in practice.

But, we've clearly reached the end of any reasonable conversation about the 
topic now.

-- 
   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

somebody wrote:
> Don't assume. You want to release code mixed with GPL code,

No, I don't! That's exactly what the article is talking about! I want to 
release code that I wrote 100% myself that includes no source or object code 
that anyone else has written. And the FSF is trying to find a way to force 
me to release that as GPL by crippling their own software.

> 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?

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.

It's what the FSF says also, as far as I know.

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

Then you're contradicting yourself there.

> 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.

Then it'll be a battle to see whose version gets incorporated into various 
distros. Which is exactly the problem I'm forseeing.

-- 
   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

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

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.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > This is contrary to other discussions I've read on the topic.
>
> It's what the FSF says also, as far as I know.
>
> > If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
> > wishes about the use of the code.
>
> Then you're contradicting yourself there.
>
> > 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.
>
> Then it'll be a battle to see whose version gets incorporated into various
> distros. Which is exactly the problem I'm forseeing.

Something like that happened before.  See egcs.

BTW, I've finally taken the time to read more deeply into the GCC plugin
controversy and by searching through the mailing lists, I reached this:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

It's interesting in that it brings to attention a point that very few seem to
notice when compiling with GCC:  the object code produced by GCC is statically
linked to a myriad of small GPL'd libs and yet you're able to release such
produced code under any license you want.  How can it be?  You see, there was
an exception in the GCC licensing that allowed for this.  So, with GPL3 around,
they thought it would also be a good time to update that exception.  Don't
worry, you can still license the produced code any way you wish.  But the
plugin architecture is what deserved the attention of the updating. ;)

Still, their reasoning seem sensible enough...

Post a reply to this message