[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [DotGNU]Re: My Favorite soapbox : XML linkage

From: Gopal V
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Re: My Favorite soapbox : XML linkage
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:03:03 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

If memory serves me right, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> It seems that I have a very specific problem with
> trying to create web services and XML interfaces
> attached to Gpled program. The introspector is such an
> interface, albiet not yet web, for the gcc.

The problem as I can see is of a FreeSoftware developer
providing a loophole for the GPL ..... IMHO it takes a
lot of knowhow to hack gcc to push introspector in ...
A company that spends so much time into gcc would have
to at end release their derievative interfaces as GPL.
This means an amount of wasted effort (in economics) 
for the company.

It is this barrier which we're relying on for protecting 
GCC now . That's why RMS is discouraging the efforts of
any FS developer in lowering this barrier......

Also if a company is *so* desperate to use RPC for using 
gcc , then what the HECK .... let them do it themselves ,
let's not help them..... etc

> The problems involved with the licensing are not the
> same as with other types of webservices.

Yes , a precious tool of GNU should be treated as such .
I don't think anyone should encourage a FS developer to
provide a loophole in GPL.... (would you like that ?)

> My point with the introspector project is that all
> code can be treated as data. Each snippet of code can
> be transformed into a fully annotated parse tree that
> can be used with very little framework. 

The point is , you're using almost all the abilities of 
GCC without any strings attached .... is that a bad thing
or what ?

> One of the ideas that I had was the one of execution
> and secure data transfer. A way that the user cannot
> execute the method unless they are registered and part
> of that registration involves an aggreement that they
> will not use it from a non-free software.

Doesn't that violate the GPL ?...... (fair use ?)

But wait ... running a method remotely is a service ?... Obviously
you can restrict that .... etc... But no distribution no
source ... YUCK !

I know we've had this discussion on IRC a number of times ,
I can understand RMS when he tries to protect the byfar the
most important GNU tool available....

The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success

reply via email to

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