"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.
That's the nature of open source projects after all. The majority of them
(maybe not in lines of codes contributed, but in number of noses) may not even
be aware at all about such discussions.

So say again, who chose this interpretation of "derivative work"?

The software authors? I doubt.

The "politically" most active part of the contributors? I bet.


> 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...

Yeah, it has already adapted - by treating it the same as static linkage,
instead of considering that the whole "derivative work" dogma needs an
overhaul.

Post a reply to this message