clipka escreveu:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It's a matter of perspective, of course.  They could very well allow for non-GPL
>> closed-source software to be plugins for gcc, but chose not to.  It's their
>> software and their terms.
> 
> ROFL!!
> 
> That's a *really* good one...
> 
> It's not *THEIR* software - it's the software of many, many, many contributors.

Yes, I'd like to say my software, but thought the pronoum their would 
fit best to the situation, ambiguous as it is.

> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
> 
> The software authors? I doubt.

They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out 
of the FSF efforts.  BTW, I believe the FSF is the copyright owner of 
all gcc and other GNU code.  I don't know if their old policy still 
applies, but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to 
give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats.  How evil 
is that, huh? ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
> >
> > The software authors? I doubt.
>
> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
> of the FSF efforts.

I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
other, truly free software.

I seriously doubt that this is the case.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> What prevents the code from being both MIT licensed and GPL licensed? 
> The MIT license, or the GPL license?

The author of the code.  He is the copyright holder and can license 
under MIT, GPL, both or none.  If he licenses under MIT, someone later 
can take it verbatim and release under GPL as well.  If he releases 
under the GPL, no one *but him* can later also release it under MIT 
license or any other.

> Having answered that, can you see where someone would say the GPL is 
> more restrictive than the MIT license?

What is more free?  Something that takes measures to always be free or 
something that is so free that even allows something to not be free anymore?

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?
>>>
>>> The software authors? I doubt.
>> They chose it when accepted contributing to a software project born out
>> of the FSF efforts.
> 
> I'm not sure about the history of the GCC code; however, what you say would mean
> that no single line of source code existed to start with before the GCC project
> was launched as a GPL project, and no single line of source code was taken from
> other, truly free software.
> 
> I seriously doubt that this is the case.

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

Simply googling for "history of gcc" suffices.  After failing to grab a 
proper free compiler, Stallman wrote one from scratch, though adapting a 
C front end from one of the previous compilers.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Of course, you can always communicate with it via IPC.  When it's a 
> single process, it's a single process.

Somehow, I don't remember the license talking about a "process".

-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> What is more free?  Something that takes measures to always be free or 
> something that is so free that even allows something to not be free 
> anymore?

Something released under the MIT license is always free.

-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to 
> give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats.  How evil 
> is that, huh? ;)

Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.
-- 
   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

nemesis wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
>>   By not being as free as it advertises to be.
> 
> I see it like as in:  "so free that won't let otherwise"

	There was once a country that had unlimited freedom of speech. They
banned anyone from ever uttering any notions that suggested that some
speech should be limited.

	Speech was "so free that they wouldn't let otherwise"

	There was another country where you could use your earnings to buy
anything you could afford. You were free to do whatever you wanted with
your money, as long as you didn't give give that money to anyone from
another country, nor spend the money outside your country. If someone
from outside gave you money, you were allowed to keep it.

	You could do whatever you wanted with the money, as long as you didn't
do whatever you weren't allowed to. It was so free.

	A cell phone company provided the ultimate freedom: You could use their
service to call whoever you wanted at *no* cost whatsoever, as long you
only called other Sprint lines. You could, of course, receive calls from
Sprint phones, but those who called you would then be forced to the
Sprint plan. Additionally, once you got a Sprint phone, the law forbade
you from ever switching to any other company.

	It was truly free.

-- 
"Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > What is more free?  Something that takes measures to always be free or
> > something that is so free that even allows something to not be free
> > anymore?
>
> Something released under the MIT license is always free.

gcc evolution is guaranteed by requiring that all modifications and bug fixes
are too released under the same GPL, thus, free.  I suspect there's no gcc BSD
equivalent because good code in it would likely be a basis for much better
commercial equivalents, who wouldn't be required by the license to give away
modified code.

GPL'd software seems to evolve much faster than BSD software.  You may tell it's
because of GPL's damned "viral" behaviour, but it's exactly what guarantees the
continual perfecting of GPL'd code, since it can't be made non-free and
powering leeches.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > but they used to accept patches only if authors were willing to
> > give them the copyright, so as to "fight" any legal threats.  How evil
> > is that, huh? ;)
>
> Pretty evil, if you later want to release it under a different license.

Indeed.  But then you realize your contribution is just a grain of sand among
many others and you wouldn't be able to do it even if each copyright holder
remained with their respective copyrights without their consent -- specially if
you're planning for a commercial license.  And then, you also realize it's your
choice to try to improve this free software project where everyone benefits or
apply your patch to some non-existent, non-GPL equivalent.  Or simply dig
Visual Studio.

Post a reply to this message