Re: (kudra: tmtowtd free software licensing) Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

[mdupont]

First of all, The GPL does not cover the Dumping of code as data, it cannot the restrict the usage of the GCC via an XML interface. Therefore it is not that restrictive. The RGPL is just for that purpose.

Secondly, I can use the PERL under the GPL. Even if it is licensed, under the Artistic license.

BSD is a problem right now, because you cannot link BSD to GPL, and you cannot make BSD modules attached to the GCC.

The motivation for creating this library is to create a haven for free software tools to interact with the meta data of the compilers. Unless we protect that, it will be very difficult to get support of the compiler vendors for such a patch. Believe me!

I am well aware of issues, the RGPL provides the only solution to the issue protecting the AST dumps from the compilers.

Regards,

Mike

[Abigail-II]

BSD is a problem right now, because you cannot link BSD to GPL, and you cannot make BSD modules attached to the GCC

Well, as I've understood, that's GPL's problem, not BSD's problem. The BSD license is more free (the only true free software is public domain software) than the GPL.

I never write modules and release them under the GPL. I seldomly agree with Microsoft, but I do agree with their opinion that the GPL is a viral license. I prefer the use an MIT/X style license. I release code because I want to the code to be used, not because for political statementes, or because I want to enforce my ideas on the world.

I'm only a humble coder. I've consumed more code that I've given. Who am I to put restrictions on the code I release?

Abigail

[mdupont]

You wrote :

---

Well, as I've understood, that's GPL's problem, not BSD's problem. The BSD license is more free (the only true free software is public domain software) than the GPL.

---

Why is that GPLed problem, look at the Mono/Pnet issue? The Pnet guys can use the MONO libs (X11), but the Mono cannot use the Pnet libs(GPL).

The BSD license is not producing any C compilers is it? partly because any major investment would not be protected.

Even the Mono C# Compiler is GPL to protect it.

If you can point out any MIT/X/BSD licensed C, C++, Java, and Perl parsers, full semantic analysis and code generation tools. Dont forget Make, Bison, Flex and BASH. They would all be targets for extracting meta-data from.

Then we can use those tools then I can just forget about making interfaces to the gcc and uses these truly free tools.

You wrote :

---

Who am I to put restrictions on the code I release?

---

Exactly.

Who am I to put under BSD what is given to me under GPL?

The GPL is succesful because it creates and End to End set of tools, not because it because anyone can take the results and run with them.

Anyway abigail, I do have respect for you opinion, mine is just different. :)

Mike