From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-198378-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 41442 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2019 19:26:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 41433 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2019 19:26:25 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:10B8005, Hx-languages-length:1443, Flash, H*f:sk:da13f67
X-HELO: smtp.hosts.co.uk
Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk (HELO smtp.hosts.co.uk) (85.233.160.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:26:23 +0000
Received: from [85.211.248.195] (helo=[192.168.1.2])	by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)	(Exim)	(envelope-from <simon@pushface.org>)	id 1gz4qT-0002kW-5F; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:26:21 +0000
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Message-Id: <1A1950D7-2119-466A-96E7-99C541CD5B70@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: License compliance on updating gcc runtime libraries
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:26:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20190227183725.D694833CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com>
Cc: zlynx@acm.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
To: Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
References: <CADPJy8VH-1O_nWy1TVswrm9VshVq1tJBpy33UY-p8dpVtsq32g@mail.gmail.com> <20190227124135.E694D33CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com> <10B80055-C31C-4C46-84E9-0A8747CF4D41@pushface.org> <20190227132003.D949D33CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com> <da13f67e-61fc-8159-1346-232dc434136d@acm.org> <20190227183725.D694833CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2

On 27 Feb 2019, at 18:37, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>=20
> 1) Whether executing a program is considered making a copy under
> copyright law.

I had a look through some of the published judgements, and it's clear that =
in the US at least copying into RAM (for whatever purpose, and provided the=
 copy has more than fleeting duration) counts as copying for copyright purp=
oses.

I can't help feeling (however useless feelings are in the face of the 9th C=
ircuit) that a software publisher should be able to rely on other methods t=
o retain control of their proprietary software. After all, ARM-based MCUs a=
re capable of executing code directly from Flash, with no copying at all.