From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16692 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2002 19:51:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16598 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 19:51:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13302.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.175.38) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 19:51:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20020228195154.63374.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.128.227.244] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:51:54 PST Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:40:00 -0000 From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: Linkage of GPLed GCC to Closed Source via XML or Perl To: Joe.Buck@synopsys.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg01836.txt.bz2 One last word on this for the record, I will put this in the licence agreement for my software and bring it to the right forum about licences. 0. My intent is to create a free software and support the GNU cause. The users of my software must also be free software and support the cause as well. The work that I have done is a derived work based on tree.h. It is not linked normally, but linked via the filesystem and network. The data exchanged between my modules and free software is so complex and dependent on the GCC code that it must fall under the GPL. I am also bringing this into the public so that we can create a set of fair rules that will cover this form of interaction and bind for others who are also creating derived works from the GPLed code including mine. 1. The work that I have done with the compiler is meant to implement an introspection into a running program. Like reflection in java. It is not for creating backends that are closed source.It is for understanding and documenting the tree nodes. It is for creating an object-oriented interface to the compiler. It is for support meta-programming. All of this is prototyped in the perl-modules that I have published. They are all strongly derived from the original (art) work done by richard stallman and the great gcc team. 2. I wrote to this topic to Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman said to me in the question if the data exchange over the network is not linking and therefore not covered by the GPL "We have a different interpretation of the situation. Connecting modules through sockets or pipes does not necessarily mean they are separate programs. In simple cases they are separate, but not when they exchange complex data structures." That would support the idea that all these are derived works and fall under the GPL. 3. Linus Torvalds said : >Feel free to consider this email (in its >entirety, not snipped into pieces) as being >public, so if you think you want to post it, go >ahead. >The GPL notion of "linking" is really nothing but >a specific technical way of trying to define >"derived work". >From a legal standpoint, technical issues have >some validity, but in the end the _only_ thing >that matters is whether it is derived or not. >Linking is only one (strong) indicator that it is >indeed derived. There are others. There are >counter-indicators as well, of course, one of >them being "previous work" (thus my willingness, >for example, to have binary modules that were >basically derived from SCO device drivers that >existed prior to Linux - one of the original >impetuses for the module interface). >And intent matters. >Linus So from Linus's standpoint, All of these tools the use the tree nodes are derived works like mine. All we need to do now is to get this in a licence agreement that makes sure that the users of the module who create derived works are all GPLed. James Michael DuPont ===== James Michael DuPont __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com