in reply to Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL
in thread OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

The GPL is not the only "free software" license out there. As far as I can tell, your proposed RGPL prevents code under other free licenses (the Artistic License, for example, which includes all of my code; or the BSD License, which includes my operating system's code) from being used as input to RGPLed programs -- like gcc, if you get your way. Or would you like to fork the gcc development tree? This proposal protects the interests of the GPL, not of open-source software.

Never mind that this would seriously undermine the real-world influence of any GPLed tools to which it was applied.

Please tell me that I'm horribly misunderstanding your point.

--
The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!
:wq

  • Comment on Re(3): OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (FoxUni) Re(3): OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL
by mdupont (Scribe) on Jun 20, 2002 at 15:53 UTC
    Right now, you cannot use GCC code without linking to it statically.

    The GCC group has asked everyone not to dynamically link it.

    You cannot use it under any other license at all.

    So I am trying to license the output of it, to put in an XML gateway, and to protect that gateway from anyone else using it other than GPLed code, just like is provisioned under the GPL.

    My point is that with the RGPL you can use shared libs and XML and all these funky tools, even GPLEd perl scripts, if you use the compiler via an RGPL interface.

    Right now there is NO way to do any of that forseen by the gcc team,and the try an squash anyone who tries.

    The introspector is a PATCH to the gcc, not a branch.

    I would not distribute that patch, only the data output from it via an RGPL licence via a web service, only to GPLed projects.

    Have I explained myself?

    Mike

[reply]

In Section Meditations