From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22817 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 14:24:05 -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 22801 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 14:24:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 14:24:03 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 181Sc7-0002Gq-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:24:03 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 181Sak-0005rZ-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:22:43 -0400 Received: from web13310.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.222]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 181Sak-0005rR-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:22:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20021015142237.93849.qmail@web13310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:22:37 PDT Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:53:00 -0000 From: James Michael DuPont Subject: Re: XML dumping and GraphViz/VCG in the GCC ast-optimizer-branch To: Robert Dewar , gcc@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20021015141333.5EAE5F28CE@nile.gnat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, SPAM_PHRASE_02_03 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00816.txt.bz2 --- Robert Dewar wrote: > < 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. I am not planning in any way to create non-free software, just pointing out that the .dot files are a file format that is read by the non-free software GraphViz. It strikes me funny that the gcc would explicitly support a non-free software, and serve it files. In fact with the policy of the FSF being to not use non-free software, and to do without or replace it by free software. But on the other hand the gcc developers seem to discourage people from producing free software that would use the same AST information in an external form. You must admit that there seems to be a double standard, or at least no enforced standard 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! Fine. My point is that I want to use this information for free software only. I have been holding back out of respect for many wishes to avoid "dangerous" software. All indications are that I am just wasting time here, I am the only one who is holding back. The offical gcc developers are adding in more features that do exactly what I was planning, so I have some catching up to do. I will also try and avoid using intermediate files where I can and link the modules statically to the gcc, as a symbol of my understanding of the issues. I hope that my patches will be some day accepted into the gcc source tree. mike ===== James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com