nemesis wrote:
> 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 

Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've given 
them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a different 
license, right?

Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's not 
the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.

-- 
   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 in message
news:49827570$1@news.povray.org...

> MIT licensed code is always free to do whatever you want with it. Whether
> that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different question. You're arguing
> that the GPL is "more free" than the MIT license, and this is just
factually
> incorrect.

That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".

Is a democracy that cannot be voted out more or less democratic than a
democracy that can be voted out?

Frankly, I'm undecided on both counts, as there are arguments to be made for
either side.

GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I see it like as in:  "so free that won't let otherwise"
> 
> You're about 25 years too late with this.  "We restrict you so you can 
> be free!"

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.4981eb2913a704f8bdc576310@news.povray.org...
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > > The GPL
> > > prevents you from linking code with a different license to GPLed code.

> > That *is* against the stipulation of the license. So it's not preventing
> > anybody who agrees to the terms of the license. If you wish to use GPL
code
> > with non-GPL code, you are *not* agreeing to the terms of the GPL
license,
> > so of course it's not going to apply to you.

> I'm sure quite a lot of people contributing to open source software
projects
> aren't even aware of this.
>
> Others that may have contributed years ago may find that it's not exactly
what
> they wanted to happen with their code when they released it, so their
copyright
> is not worth a piece of dingo's scat to enforce their interests in that
matter.

I'm quite sure there are a lot of people who make all sorts of mistakes due
to ignorance, laziness, stupidity. Bottomline is, you cannot force people to
RTFM or to RTFP. If they do not, it's their own problem.

> I have no problem with the fact that licenses may at times be misused
contrary
> to the original intentions. I wouldn't even have much of a problem if the
FSF
> continued this practice of assimilating software for their own cause. But
I'd
> appreciate it if the FSF (and supporters) would be aware and honest about
this,
> instead of claiming to better the world. Let alone being the best
> world-betterers around.

I think OS is for the most part a stupid idea (I will start giving away code
when my baker starts giving away bread), but I don't see how it's FSF's
fault if people don't care to know what they are signing their name under.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've 
> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with a 
> different license, right?

Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so, 
including commercial entities, are well aware of it.

> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's 
> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.

Copyright gets a twist in the GPL, the so-called copyleft:  the 
copyright holder explicitely *grants* others the rights to use, copy and 
modify it, as long as it's always under the GPL.  The copyright holder 
of the original GPL'd code is still the same, but what does this mean 
when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?

The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation 
to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a 
restrictive commercial license (though the original codebase still GPL) 
and become the next Microsoft from then on.  Pissing and laughing on all 
contributors who've given away copyrights thus far.  Perhaps they launch 
this malign plan once the HURD kernel is ready after its 30 years of 
development so far?  It'll be the perfect system to run Duke Nukem 
Forever...

Note also that, even though the official gcc and other GNU software only 
accept patches with the copyrights given to the FSF (I'm not really sure 
about this today, but for the sake of argument, let's stick with the 
notion), nothing prevents one from forking gcc and maintaining a 
personal branch of it with modifications whose copyright does not go to 
the FSF.  You can even redistribute it, under the GPL for sure, but 
you're the copyright holder only for your patches to the codebase.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> 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"

<snip>

>>  It was truly free.
> 
> Nice anecdote. :)
> 
> So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)

	That wasn't really my point. I was pointing out that I found your
statement above about freedom to be somewhat silly.

	The FSF folks love to play games with the word "free". I was giving
scenarios where "free" would be quite bad, and would also not be  free
for others.

> I still prefer country 2. ;)

	Until you realize that all other countries will stop doing business
with you.


-- 
"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

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.

> GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
> stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
> ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.

The MIT license ensures that anything licensed under the MIT license is 
free. Now, you can take that code, and add *NEW* code that isn't MIT 
licensed to it. But that isn't the code that was MIT licensed.

You're conflating "the code that I released" with "the code that you 
released that builds on my code."  You think that if the latter isn't free, 
then the former isn't either.

GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code of 
people who improve GPLed code. The brainwashing in this case is to make 
people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code to control.

-- 
   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:
>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've 
>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with 
>> a different license, right?
> 
> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so, 
> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
> 
>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's 
>> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
> 
> [...]   The copyright holder
> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,

Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.

> but what does this mean 
> when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?

That he can prevent you from copying it.

> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation 
> to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a 
> restrictive commercial license 

Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the assertion 
that the original author can always dual-license the code is incorrect if 
you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.

-- 
   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 escreveu:
>  The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms
> to force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch 
> yourself without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code. They're 
> not respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my* original 
> code

Your gcc plugin code would only exist in the first place as an extension 
for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.  So, why 
would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?

If the GPL alone would be able to restrict it in this way, you wouldn't 
enjoy it either, so what motivations would you have to submit any code 
at all to help promote and spread a project purpoting the evil GPL license?


Non sequitur...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

You're right.  MIT is more free than GPL is.

> GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code 
> of people who improve GPLed code.

Very true.

> The brainwashing in this case is to 
> make people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code 
> to control.

I don't think I get it what you mean.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've 
>>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code 
>>> with a different license, right?
>>
>> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so, 
>> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
>>
>>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. 
>>> It's not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
>>
>> [...]   The copyright holder
>> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,
> 
> Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.

It was exactly about the FSF I was talking about, following from the gcc 
case.

>> but what does this mean when he explicitely grants others the right to 
>> use, copy and modify it?
> 
> That he can prevent you from copying it.

No, he can't because he explicitely stated otherwise by abiding by the 
GPL terms.

He can, as copyright owner, license it all under another license and 
begin anew, even closed source, from there on with worthy improvements 
to the code, just as some commercial entity can take away a MIT project 
and do the same.  The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, 
like MIT code.

>> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a 
>> foundation to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under 
>> a restrictive commercial license 
> 
> Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the 
> assertion that the original author can always dual-license the code is 
> incorrect if you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.

The majority of GPL'd code out there is not GNU and copyrights are 
retained by the original authors, which is what really fuels GPL 
projects, since everyone benefits from collaborative development and 
still retain their copyrights in face of leechers.

If you're willing to donate code patches to the FSF though, you are well 
aware of the consequences and are willing to take the risk perhaps 
because you think it'll be of benefit for everyone, including yourself 
(like, others can take the burden of maintaining the software, even your 
changes).  Even though Stallman may end up being nothing more than a 
evil leecher and a hypocrite.  I believe it's more likely though that 
he'll be assaulted by ninjas...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
>> The brainwashing in this case is to make people think that if I 
>> improve your code, then it's still your code to control.
> 
> I don't think I get it what you mean.

You conflate "my code, with your code added" to be the same as "my code". 
The GPL isn't "more free" than the MIT license. It's just letting you 
exercise different control over the code you wrote yourself. You can prevent 
me from distributing your code in ways you don't like, but that's true of 
every license.

The thing that's "getting ridiculous" is when people go out of their way to 
apply the GPL to *your* code when it *isn't* a derivative of any GPLed code. 
See how that works?

-- 
   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:
> Darren New escreveu:
>>  The FSF is looking for technological mechanisms
>> to force you to GPL the code that you wrote entirely from scratch 
>> yourself without modifying or incorporating any other GPL code. 
>> They're not respecting my wishes about how I want to distribute *my* 
>> original code
> 
> Your gcc plugin code would only exist in the first place as an extension 
> for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.

This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler. Or it 
may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it to work 
for gcc also.

In any case, that's irrelevant. If gcc plug-ins fell under the GPL, they 
wouldn't need technological mechanisms to prevent them from working when 
they aren't GPLed, would they? The fact that it interoperates with gcc 
doesn't mean they're respecting my wishes for how I want to license my code, 
does it?

> So, why 
> would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?

And my Linux application wouldn't exist if I didn't have Linux to run it 
under. Does that mean my application is GPLed? My apache module wouldn't 
exist if apache wasn't around. Does that mean my module is GPLed? My PSQL 
stored procedures wouldn't exist if PSQL wasn't around. That doesn't make my 
stored procedures GPLed.

If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, would you 
find software companies like Adobe porting their software to it?

> If the GPL alone would be able to restrict it in this way, you wouldn't 
> enjoy it either, so what motivations would you have to submit any code 
> at all to help promote and spread a project purpoting the evil GPL license?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use this 
compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us."  As you say, people 
don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if they did.

I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, they wind 
up acting like monopolists.

-- 
   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:
>> Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.
> It was exactly about the FSF I was talking about, following from the gcc 
> case.

I was referring to the concept that "the original author can always 
dual-license it."  That isn't true if the copyright has been given to FSF.

> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.

Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.

> The majority of GPL'd code out there is not GNU and copyrights are 
> retained by the original authors, which is what really fuels GPL 
> projects, since everyone benefits from collaborative development and 
> still retain their copyrights in face of leechers.
> 
> If you're willing to donate code patches to the FSF though, you are well 
> aware of the consequences and are willing to take the risk perhaps 
> because you think it'll be of benefit for everyone, including yourself 
> (like, others can take the burden of maintaining the software, even your 
> changes).  Even though Stallman may end up being nothing more than a 
> evil leecher and a hypocrite.  I believe it's more likely though that 
> he'll be assaulted by ninjas...

I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take code 
from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain any code of 
a GPLed project, and force them to release it under 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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:46:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:22:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>   This makes GPL incompatible with all other licenses. This is
>>>>>   rather
>>>>> restricting.
>>>> But protective of the rights of the original author, which is the
>>>> underlying goal.
>>> Which original author? The one giving away the code with more
>>> restrictions, or the one giving away the code with fewer restrictions?
>> 
>> The one who wrote the code that you are modifying and then
>> distributing.
> 
> What makes you think I'm modifying the GPL code?
> 
> If I include libjpg without modifying it at all, I can no longer use the
> MIT license on my code, even if my code is orders of magnitude larger
> and more valuable. This forces me, while building something large that I
> need to get paid for, to rewrite code that's already tested and works
> well and is bug-free and safe. Hence, GPL code leads to bugs in non-GPL
> code.

You can link to GPL libraries.  There are plenty of examples of this.

What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL licensed 
code.

There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can dual-
license it.  There are also plenty of examples of this.

There's nothing that says you can't get paid for writing GPL code.  There 
are also also plenty of examples of this.

But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code 
others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever 
that license is, not just if it's GPL).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.

No, it's not factually wrong.

I just purchased X-Plane 9.  It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other 
libraries.

X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries 
which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.

If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into his 
binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to 
license his whole software package under the GPL.  He didn't and he's 
within the requirements of using GPL libraries.

The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under the 
GPL" has been disproven time and time again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> I was referring to the concept that "the original author can always 
> dual-license it."  That isn't true if the copyright has been given to FSF.

True.  Perhaps I should've written "the copyright owner can always 
dual-license it", but that would lead to further ambiguity, like in the 
case of someone submitting code to a large project only to find out it 
really wouldn't matter to dual code his lone little patch.  What sense 
does it make to release it in, say, a closed-source license, something 
that is but a little part of a far larger GPL'd whole and which wouldn't 
exist independently of it?

>> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.
> 
> Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.

I thought I said that in that very sentence, but now reading it looks 
ambiguous, yes.  Sorry.

> I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take code 
> from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain any code 
> of a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the GPL.

It doesn't force anyone any more than the GPL forces everyone to use Linux.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
>> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
> 
> No, it's not factually wrong.
> 
> I just purchased X-Plane 9.  It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other 
> libraries.
> 
> X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries 
> which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
> 
> If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into his 
> binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to 
> license his whole software package under the GPL.  He didn't and he's 
> within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
> 
> The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under the 
> GPL" has been disproven time and time again.

Hmm, this sounds weird.  You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL 
lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well?  If so, what's the 
point of the LGPL?

And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd.  In fact, it's a specification only. 
  Are you talking about the mesa lib?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> You can link to GPL libraries.  There are plenty of examples of this.

Then what's the LGPL for?

Note that OpenAL is apparently LGPL, so it specifically says you can link to 
it without invoking the GPL.

> What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL licensed 
> code.

Define "incorporate"? Look at the first paragraph of
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

It doesn't sound like the FSF agrees with you.

> There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can dual-
> license it. 

Unless it's a plug-in for GCC.

> But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code 
> others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever 
> that license is, not just if it's GPL).

Agreed. I'm not arguing the GPL is a bad thing, even. I'm simply pointing 
out that a lot of the slogans promoted by FSF supporters are wrong.

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".

-- 
   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:
> True.  Perhaps I should've written "the copyright owner can always 
> dual-license it", but that would lead to further ambiguity, like in the 
> case of someone submitting code to a large project only to find out it 
> really wouldn't matter to dual code his lone little patch.  What sense 
> does it make to release it in, say, a closed-source license, something 
> that is but a little part of a far larger GPL'd whole and which wouldn't 
> exist independently of it?

It doesn't. I don't think anyone would complain that a patch to the 
internals of the Linux kernel won't get incorporated unless they too are GPLed.

It's major functionalities, like, say, plug-ins, that people might want to 
dual-license.

>>> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.
>>
>> Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.
> 
> I thought I said that in that very sentence, but now reading it looks 
> ambiguous, yes.  Sorry.

I see.

>> I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take 
>> code from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain 
>> any code of a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the GPL.
> 
> It doesn't force anyone any more than the GPL forces everyone to use Linux.

No, the GPL doesn't. But that's exactly what the FSF is trying to do for gcc 
plug-ins. Remember where the thread started? Did you read the article that 
was linked? The article was specifically "how can the FSF force gcc plug-ins 
to be released as GPL even if they don't incorporate any GPLed code?"

-- 
   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:
> Hmm, this sounds weird.  You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL 
> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well?  If so, what's the 
> point of the LGPL?
> 
> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd.  In fact, it's a specification only. 
>  Are you talking about the mesa lib?

OpenAL is also LGPL, as far as I can tell. (They don't actually put the 
license on the web site anywhere.)  You'd think fsf.org would have a FAQ 
section too, or at least have links to the actual licenses off the home page 
somewhere.

-- 
   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 escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> extension for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
> 
> This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler.

Down to the devious plugin architecture?!  I think Duke Nukem Forever 
and HURD are released first, or Wine 2.0 is Vista compatible.

> it may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it to 
> work for gcc also.

Why?  You don't like the damned GPL stuff, remember?  Why help spread 
it?  Why not tell your users that if they want said functionality 
they'll need to use other, possibly better and unrestricted compiler?

>> So, why would you even write a plugin for gcc in the first place?
> 
> And my Linux application wouldn't exist if I didn't have Linux to run it 
> under. Does that mean my application is GPLed? My apache module wouldn't 
> exist if apache wasn't around. Does that mean my module is GPLed? My 
> PSQL stored procedures wouldn't exist if PSQL wasn't around. That 
> doesn't make my stored procedures GPLed.

Of course, none of those projects require your code to be GPLed.  GCC 
will, and not by the GPL.

BTW, all your examples do not constitute a single program running in the 
same process space, they are very different from app and lib or plugin.

> If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, would 
> you find software companies like Adobe porting their software to it?

You talk like as if the plugin is an external app running in a "gcc 
kernel space".

> You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use this 
> compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us."  As you say, 
> people don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if they did.

GCC doesn't say that, so I don't know how the example is any pertinent.

> I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, they 
> wind up acting like monopolists.

Like in areas where they are actually the original developers of GNU 
software?  Yeah, sound as bad as Apache...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> extension for gcc, so without gcc, there would be no plugin of yours.
>>
>> This is not true. Someone else may write a gcc-compatible compiler.
> 
> Down to the devious plugin architecture?! 

Someone may write a word processor compatible down to the undocumented 
binary file format?!?

Maybe someone likes your gcc plug-in so much they want you to port it to 
*their* compiler.  Whoops, sorry! You can't!

>> it may be a large codebase that works for any compiler, and I want it 
>> to work for gcc also.
> 
> Why?  You don't like the damned GPL stuff, remember?

I didn't say that. I said I don't always like what it does to my employment, 
and I said I don't like how the FSF is trying to force unrelated software to 
be GPLed. But most of the developer tools are pretty nice.

> BTW, all your examples do not constitute a single program running in the 
> same process space, they are very different from app and lib or plugin.

I'm not sure what "single address space" has to do with it. Certainly my 
program runs in the same address space as the Linux kernel, or the Linux 
kernel wouldn't be able to fill my buffers with data when I call read().

>> If every Linux application you wrote was required to use the GPL, 
>> would you find software companies like Adobe porting their software to 
>> it?
> 
> You talk like as if the plugin is an external app running in a "gcc 
> kernel space".

It is, as much as FLASH is. It's an "external app" in that it doesn't 
incorporate any of the code from GCC into itself.

>> You can certainly license code with a license that says "if you use 
>> this compiler, everything you compile with it belongs to us."  As you 
>> say, people don't do that, because people wouldn't use the compiler if 
>> they did.
> 
> GCC doesn't say that, so I don't know how the example is any pertinent.

Right. I was trying to explain *why* it doesn't say that, even tho it could 
say that with at least as much authority as the plug-in architecture could.

>> I find it interesting that in the areas where FSF *is* the leader, 
>> they wind up acting like monopolists.
> 
> Like in areas where they are actually the original developers of GNU 
> software?  

No, like in areas where the product is so good it has pushed most 
competitors out. Like, Sun shipping the gcc compiler instead of continuing 
to improve their own.

-- 
   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 escreveu:
>  You can
> prevent me from distributing your code in ways you don't like, but 
> that's true of every license.

What isn't true of every license is that it lets you use software for 
any purposes *or* modify or make it as basis for other software as long 
as you release it all under the same license too.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:19 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You can link to GPL libraries.  There are plenty of examples of this.
> 
> Then what's the LGPL for?

Provides some additional options.

> Note that OpenAL is apparently LGPL, so it specifically says you can
> link to it without invoking the GPL.

Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your 
program has to be GPL'ed.  I used OpenAL as an example, probably not the 
best example given that it is LGPL.

>> What you cannot do is incorporate GPL-licensed code into non-GPL
>> licensed code.
> 
> Define "incorporate"? Look at the first paragraph of
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

I write this:

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.  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.

> It doesn't sound like the FSF agrees with you.
> 
>> There is, AFAIK, one single exception - if you own the code, you can
>> dual- license it.
> 
> Unless it's a plug-in for GCC.

Well, argue that with the GNU foundation, I would agree that the root of 
this debate is suspicious.  It seems, though, they're trying to do 
something similar to the Linux kernel's "tainted" flag with the compiler, 
but pushing it to a new level.

>> But if you're building something large and you want to leverage code
>> others have written, you have to respect their license terms (whatever
>> that license is, not just if it's GPL).
> 
> Agreed. I'm not arguing the GPL is a bad thing, even. I'm simply
> pointing out that a lot of the slogans promoted by FSF supporters are
> wrong.
> 
> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49834830$1@news.povray.org...

> The thing that's "getting ridiculous" is when people go out of their way
to
> apply the GPL to *your* code when it *isn't* a derivative of any GPLed
code.
> See how that works?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:19:54 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:46:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> So you said "The GPL only affects those who modify the code." This is
>>> factually wrong, as evidenced by my example.
>> 
>> No, it's not factually wrong.
>> 
>> I just purchased X-Plane 9.  It uses openAL, openGL and a slew of other
>> libraries.
>> 
>> X-Plane is a proprietary software package that links to these libraries
>> which IIRC are licensed under the GPL.
>> 
>> If Austin (the author of X-Plane) had incorporated the libraries into
>> his binary by compiling the code as part, then yes, he would've had to
>> license his whole software package under the GPL.  He didn't and he's
>> within the requirements of using GPL libraries.
>> 
>> The argument about "linking means you have to release your code under
>> the GPL" has been disproven time and time again.
> 
> Hmm, this sounds weird.  You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well?  If so, what's the
> point of the LGPL?

I don't believe it does.  But I've not done an in-depth look at the 
differences between GPL and LGPL.  I have read a lot of discussions about 
it, though.

> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd.  In fact, it's a specification only.
>   Are you talking about the mesa lib?

D'oh!  Yes, Mesa is what I'm talking about, it provides libGL.  However, 
Mesa is X11/MIT licensed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:40:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> nemesis wrote:
>> Hmm, this sounds weird.  You mean dynamic linking an app against a GPL
>> lib doesn't require one to GPL the app code as well?  If so, what's the
>> point of the LGPL?
>> 
>> And I didn't know OpenGL was GPL'd.  In fact, it's a specification
>> only.
>>  Are you talking about the mesa lib?
> 
> OpenAL is also LGPL, as far as I can tell. (They don't actually put the
> license on the web site anywhere.)  You'd think fsf.org would have a FAQ
> section too, or at least have links to the actual licenses off the home
> page somewhere.

LGPL 2.1 or later according to my RPM package.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
   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:
> LGPL 2.1 or later according to my RPM package.

And GPL != LGPL. LGPL is GPL plus ability to use the library unmodified in 
commercial applications. The GPL doesn't allow you to link to unmodified GPL 
code and use it in your own program.

-- 
   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:
> 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

nemesis wrote:
> 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? 

Yes. Why is "somebody" telling me a choice is to not release code that isn't 
based on or interfacing with GPL code? In other words, the implication of 
the text above is that the only way to release a gcc plug-in is via GPL. But 
that isn't true. It's what FSF wants to be true, but it isn't true. Were it 
true, it would be the same situation as applications on Linux.

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

Ding ding ding! Yes, exactly. I'm pointing out that no, the GPL alone allows 
for closed plug-ins in exactly the same way that GPL allows for closed 
applications running under Linux.

FSF wants to figure out a technological way of forcing others to only GPL 
code that runs as a plug-in to gcc. I feel that's over the top. I know it's 
their right to do whatever the f__k they please with their code. I don't 
believe it's the case they can enforce that thru their current license. I 
believe that them using technological means to prevent closed plug-ins from 
being written is similar to the technological means TiVo uses to prevent 
your code from running on their hardware, which FSF has complained about, 
hence making the FSF hypocritical. Does that make it clear?

> 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.

Except that they're wrong, depending on what you mean by "should". If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF would like that to be the case", then yes. If by 
"should" you mean "the FSF thinks that's already the case", then no.

-- 
   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:
> Still, their reasoning seem sensible enough...

Yes. It sounds very ... commercial.  "Likely to backfire..." Think about 
what that phrase means.  But I'll agree that they seem to have patched up 
the license to manage to make the *output* code from GCC fall under the GPL 
even if the plug-in doesn't. That's fine with me.

Also not sure why non-free software is "bad for society." I guess if you 
take that as an axiom, it makes sense, but I disagree that it's as obvious 
as FSF makes it out to be. Not sure why non-free software is more "bad for 
society" than non-free manufacturing techniques, non-free music, etc.

-- 
   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 18:57:50 -0800, Darren New 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.

Perhaps, but it's not in line with other discussions I've seen on the 
topic. <shrug>

> 
>> 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.

No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does 
that contradict anything I've said so far?  If I write code, I get to say 
how it's used.  I have consistently said that.

>> 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.

Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see 
choice as a problem. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does 
> that contradict anything I've said so far?

That I can use your code for commercial gain if I just link it in without 
changing it?

You said
"""
Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
program has to be GPL'ed.
"""

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

> Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see 
> choice as a problem. :-)

It wouldn't be, if choice was really that easy.

-- 
   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:
> worry, you can still license the produced code any way you wish.  But the
> plugin architecture is what deserved the attention of the updating. ;)

Now here's a question for ya:

"""
However, if you used GCC in conjunction with GPL-incompatible software 
during the process of transforming high-level code to low-level code, that 
would not be an Eligible Compilation Process. This would happen if, for 
example, you used GCC with a proprietary plugin.
"""

Let's look at a couple of scenarios:

I modify gcc, but I never distribute my modifications. Can I license the 
resulting "Target Code" under a proprietary license?

I buy a proprietary plug-in that does something like (say) Purify, or 
performance measurements, or helps with debugging, by modifying the 
intermediate representation to include calls to the libraries used by the 
plug-in. I then run my code, improve the performance, fix the bugs, then 
recompile without the plug-in. Doesn't sound like the final release-mode 
executable is restricted.

How about if I develop my own proprietary plug-in that I never distribute. 
Is the target code still covered?

How about if I develop a plug-in, release it dual-licensed under 
"binary-only" for $100 a copy without permission to distribute, or under GPL 
and sell the first copy for $1,000,000 under GPL? It's available under GPL, 
now, so that makes it Eligible, right, so the code created by the plug-in is 
not GPLed.

What if the plug-in outputs stuff that compiles? It's not intermediate code. 
What if I have a plug-in that outputs LISP code that does the same thing as 
the C you input? Or which lets you input LISP which can then get translated 
down to executable code. Is LISP an "intermediate language"?

I don't think this is going to do what I think they think it's going to do.

-- 
   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 1/28/2009 12:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Right. That's my point. Why would GCC require a plug-in author to give
> it a particular license? It wouldn't be any different from the Linux
> kernel enforcing only running apps that were GPLed.

Shh... don't give them any ideas!!!

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I don't think this is going to do what I think they think it's going to do.

Or one more thought ... What if I use the gcc front-end, a plug-in that 
saves the intermediate code to disk, and then I compile that intermediate 
code down to something that doesn't use gcc libraries? (Java bytecodes, .NET 
IL, or machine code that I generate completely within the plug-in...)

Doesn't sound like they're managing to cover everything it sounds like they 
think they're trying to cover. :-)

-- 
   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 22:20:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, I don't think I am.  You can use my code under my terms.  How does
>> that contradict anything I've said so far?
> 
> That I can use your code for commercial gain if I just link it in
> without changing it?
> 
> You said
> """
> Yes, but again, linking to something that's GPL'ed doesn't mean your
> program has to be GPL'ed.
> """
> 
> Then you said
> """
> If you include code I wrote in your code, then you have to respect my
> wishes about the use of the code.
> """
> 
>> Possibly, though I don't see it as a "problem" per se.  I don't see
>> choice as a problem. :-)
> 
> It wouldn't be, if choice was really that easy.

Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Linking != cut and paste of my code into your code.

Well, no. But that's not what's under discussion. Your use of "use" is 
confusing. And plug-ins don't cut-and-paste[1] code from the system they're 
plugging into.


[1] Hi Warp!  ;-)

-- 
   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:
> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:

You're an evil man. ;)

BTW, asking me won't do any good.  How about handling these questions to the FSF
so they can debunk or reformulate their terms or wait and test for yourself once
the architecture is in place?

Post a reply to this message