From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-61590-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18516 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 14:13:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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 18505 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 14:13:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 14:13:50 -0000
Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 181SSD-00027x-01
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:13:49 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 181SRz-0001EW-00
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:13:36 -0400
Received: from nile.gnat.com ([205.232.38.5])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 181SRz-0001EE-00
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:13:35 -0400
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 5EAE5F28CE; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:13:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: gcc@gnu.org, mdupont777@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: XML dumping and GraphViz/VCG in the GCC ast-optimizer-branch
Message-Id: <20021015141333.5EAE5F28CE@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:45:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_RFCI,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02
	version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: **
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00814.txt.bz2

<<Also the dump-tree-dot module dumps into a format for the non-free
software dot, a part of graphviz. I take this is an accepted practice
of dumping tree structures for explict usage by non-free software?
>>

You should make no such assumption. The mere use of an intermediate file
does not get around the limitations in the GPL license automatically.
Indeed there are obvious cases where such an approach would be a clear
violation of the license.

As always, you need to consult an attorney for this kind of approach.

<<Or is the contents of the CVS not an indication of policy at all,
with the policy makers not enforcing them, and the cvs commiters not
asking for permission?
>>

Certainly the contents of the CVS is not necessarily an indication
of policy. And most certainly no legal conclusions can be drawn
from the contents of the CVS!