Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

Now I see your point.  However, a modification is considered here not simply the
act of taking the original code and messing with it.  A work derived from an
unmodified source is also a modification, "using" it to integrate its features
as base for a larger work.  That, I guess, is the crux of the matter with gcc
plugins.

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.  The GPL doesn't require it and the GPL seems to be
living still in the older world of static linkage, but is slowly adapting to
new forms of composing software...

Of course, anyone courageous enough to fork gcc should stand right.  But I guess
most of these anti-FSF folks are more busy paying Microsoft for Visual Studio
and relegate gcc to geeky hobby.

Post a reply to this message