From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-61596-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29932 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 14:34:07 -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 29925 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 14:34:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 14:34:06 -0000
Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 181Slq-0002iX-00
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:34:06 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 181Slm-0002Cx-00
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:34:05 -0400
Received: from nile.gnat.com ([205.232.38.5])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 181Sll-0002A6-00
	for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:34:02 -0400
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 04DF6F28CE; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:34:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: dewar@gnat.com, gcc@gnu.org, mdupont777@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: XML dumping and GraphViz/VCG in the GCC ast-optimizer-branch
Message-Id: <20021015143401.04DF6F28CE@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:28:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0
	tests=FROM_AND_TO_SAME_6,RCVD_IN_RFCI,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
	version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00820.txt.bz2

<<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.
>>

This is confused, it is not at all correct to say that gcc is "explicitly
supporting a non-free software and serving it files". If gcc is used int
this way, it might well be a copyright violation. And the only way to
determine this would be through litigation. Certainly there is no policy
statement that says that this is permissible.