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

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

What happend if (related GPL & src)


From: hgb3D
Subject: What happend if (related GPL & src)
Date: 30 Nov 2004 20:07:27 -0800

I have mailed this two messages to GCC and mesa3d

=========================================================FIRST
MESSAGE:

I have a question.

I will read or desire to read the source code of gcc, but if I for
example make some anotations or some work based in my notes, or I get
a idea of how to implement X thing,  or I think that certain idea is
nice, and then I make my own compiler this compiler should need by
under GPL?

>From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

[quote]*6.* Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based
on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.[/quote]

Altought I consider a little opaque the concept of the "programm" in
that licence, but anyway, I like that you answer first this question.



Hope you can help me out. 

===============================================END FIRST MESSAGE

==============================================SECOND MESSAGE, after a
anser redirecting me to this place....


Thanks, I will redirect my question to

gnu.misc.discuss

because I was planning in do some "research" in fact read some source,
your ones (GCC) and mesa3d, but after thinking a little about software
patents and what is GPL, now I am feared because like now I see they
are the same moster (that is my actuall feeling).

I will read the codes because I remember one teacher that talk to us
about a guy at sun(java) that master itself in poetry instead of
computing, when he get out, he say some like "poetry and programming
are really more equivalent to what you think, the level of imagination
involved, the complexity, etc are both equivalent, the only diference
that I watch was that poetry is teached saying students to read the
greates novels, poems, etc. Then copy them and then making is own
style. But in the side of programming they only show you the sintaxis
of languages and make you do things, instead of send to you to read
the greatfull pieces of code out there..."


But I have taked fear now watching that sixth point, and sure if GPL
can claim that if I read your source code or mesa code, and I do some
myself, sure I will NEVER read your code.

I see now the diference from a book that really dosent restrict on how
to use any derivate work (because you acquire the knowledge from the
text) and then a derivation (with you own paths, imagination and mind)
take the place for apply in any that you whant.

wonderfull of you people when your acquisition of knowledge,
imagination, freedom of imagination and speech where not targeted be
patents, Licenses and pheraphs others things that will come later.






Sorry if is not the place to say it, but I whant to answer in this
moment, anyway, I will post this and the anterior post that I do to
the place that you have sayed me, also I will post here the link about
my feeling in that place (if you whant to follow up).

Thx anyway ;) , gl & hf.

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> hgbasm <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  
>
>> I will read or desire to read the source code of gcc, but if I for
>> example make some anotations or some work based in my notes, or I
get
>> a idea of how to implement X thing,  or I think that certain idea
is
>> nice, and then I make my own compiler this compiler should need by
>> under GPL?
>>   
>
>
> Believe it or not, this is not really a gcc question.  It is a
> question about the GPL.  Try gnu.misc.discuss.
>
> My answer is that your compiler is covered by the GPL if it is a
> derivative work of gcc.  When is it a derivative work?  Nobody can
> tell you for sure, as the notion of a derivative work in software is
> not spelled out by law or by the court system.  Taking an idea from
> gcc and reimplementing it yourself will probably not itself cause your
> implementation to be a derivative work.
>
> Ian
>
>  
>

===========================================END SECOND MESSAGE.

Hope you can help me out.

Thx.


reply via email to

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