gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:47:12 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

amicus_curious wrote:

The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs based on the programmer's arrangement of source code
 syntax and order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a
media as defined by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason.

You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy
 from the start.  By making explicitly clear that the compiled code
is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry
about.


Sorry, but "confusion" does not reign on my part. You missed point of
my assertion. This discussion is not occurring in a neutral context.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

By using terminology such as "explicitly relinquished (rather than
ascertained) rights", you are implying that the GPL, if it were not
for the "exception" stated by the Free Software Foundation, *would*
have legal consequence. By claiming, "By making explicitly clear that
the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler
copyright. . .", you leave the impression that the compiler license
(the GPL) requirements *are* enforceable in other contexts. But they
aren't.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]