Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL (EDITED spelling)

[mdupont]

in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL (EDITED spelling)
in thread OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

Look at the current fears of the GCC of a non-free backend.

There are tools that can dump the source code and then process it outside of the GCC, thus creating a non-free plug in.

That is the whole I am talking about.

mike

[ignatz]

Using an application to munge on a file doesn't change the copyright of that file. This doesn't sound like a loophole in copyright, it just sounds like an example of good ol' fashioned theft IMNSHO.

()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

[mdupont]

Look,

the point is that I cannot get support from all the compiler and interpreter authors if all the work they put into creating a parse tree can just be taken from them and used by a third party to create non free backends, right?

At least from the GCC.

It is not about changing the copyright, it is about keeping the gcc from being abused and turned into just a parse or just a code generator by a third party.

This is a limitation of use not of copyright.

It is an end user license agreement.

mike