http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230

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

Some of the stuff in the wiki sounded like DRM.

"A gcc-based scripting interpreter could by default check for a mandatory
license statement (header) in every source file, so that "stock gcc" could
deny running plugins (scripts) with a non-matching license header/marker
telling the user that stock gcc only runs plugin scripts covered by the
GPL"

"Couldn't the plugin interface require a copyrighted passphrase to be sent
by the plugin when it registeres, and the passphrase can then be licensed
under the GPL. Thus, plugins that want to interface with an official FSF
gcc will have to be GPLed in order to talk to the plugin interface, and we
don't need to tinker with the runtime licensing."

What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
to make sure plugins are GPL??

Post a reply to this message

Play our way or not at all.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest 
efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:497fd2c3@news.povray.org...

> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins

> What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
> whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
> to make sure plugins are GPL??

Why is it surprising, duplicituous or outrageous that software authors want
to enforce their licenses, be it commercial or free and/or open source? FSF
is not an anti-license organization, it just promotes a different kind of
license than commercial. That doesn't mean similar techniques cannot be
employed to try to enforce the license and/or prosecute infractions.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497fd2c3@news.povray.org...
>
> > http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/27/223230
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_Plugins
>
> > What?!? That's similar to what TiVo did, which made the FSF come up with a
> > whole new GPL version. And now they want to use the same kind of strategy
> > to make sure plugins are GPL??
>
> Why is it surprising, duplicituous or outrageous that software authors want
> to enforce their licenses, be it commercial or free and/or open source? FSF
> is not an anti-license organization, it just promotes a different kind of
> license than commercial.

Yes, the GPL is fully copyright-based.  It's not public domain and you own the
rights to your contribution throughout.  It's just that through that license
you promote and allow your licensed work to be used and modified by others, as
long as they don't try to pull a smarty and deny others that same right.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest
> efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.

Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
others the same rights the GPL offered you.  Fair enough.

I understand all this backslash against GPL is pretty much the same all
successful things get one time in the height of their lifes, like Seinfeld or
Pixar.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I understand all this backslash against GPL is pretty much the same all
> successful things get one time in the height of their lifes, like Seinfeld
> or Pixar.

I'm not against GPL (I contribute to a LGPL project regularly and my own
projects are GPL when and if they get out of my computer). I'm against
DRM-like measures in GNU software.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> Play our way or not at all.
> 

And that is why I'm very careful about the source of code for my 
projects. I don't want to be forcefully bound to releasing source code, 
even if I'm considering sharing the source any way.

(Like I've ever released a project. Oh, yeah .. my game.. That was about 
it.)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
> I'm not against GPL (I contribute to a LGPL project regularly and my own
> projects are GPL when and if they get out of my computer). I'm against
> DRM-like measures in GNU software.

Those "DRM-like measures" don't take away the freedoms of anyone anymore 
than current GPL:  people wanting it for proprietary projects without 
source code sharing are still out, as they've always been.

These plugins for GCC are not like plugins for Firefox.  Despite both in 
a sense providing extended functionality for the open-source projects, a 
Flash player depends entirely on Flash content on the web, not on 
specific Firefox resources, while a plugin for gcc would be eager to use 
data, structures and functions provided by the core compiler.  It's 
really just code that should be in the compiler that was outsourced, so 
it must be GPL too.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:59 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> people wanting it for proprietary projects without source code sharing
> are still out, as they've always been.

As I understand it, that's not strictly true.  If you don't distribute 
your modified program, you're not obligated to submit your changes 
upstream or to distribute your modified code.  Sharing the code becomes a 
requirement only if you distribute your modified version of the program.

Jim

Post a reply to this message