[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Humberto Massa wrote:
> 1. I get gcc's sources;
> 1. (a) I have a valid license to it;
> 2. I get metafont sources;
> 2. (a) I also have a valid license to this;
> -- up to this point, no license violation
> 3. I make modifications to gcc and to metafont, taking care of :
> 3. (a) not removing any copyright (C) notices -- they are already there,
> I don't need to put them, I received gcc under the terms of the GPL,
> with the notices, and the disclaimer (as to satisfy GPL#1);
> 3. (b) marking the changed files as changed as to satisfy GPL#2, 'a';
> 3. (c) gcc does not have the announcement in GPL#2, 'c', so nothing else
> is required;
> 3. (d) I will take appropriate similar precautions stated in metafont's
> license (OPL?) in making the modifications to metafont's files;
> -- up to this point, no license violation
> 4. I will write my files needed to integrate both, taking all the
> necessary precautions 3 a-d above. Notice that probably my files (unless
> completely unrelated) are derived works both of metafont and of gcc.
> -- no license violation.
> 5. I will diff the sources from the resulting program with the original
> sources

This diff is a derived work of your program and the original sources.

> -- no license violation.
> 6. I will write a script that like this:
>    mkdir ~/metagcc; chdir ~/metagcc
>    tar xzvf $GCC_SOURCES
>    tar xzvf $METAFONT_SOURCES
>    patch -p1 ../../metagcc.patch

metagcc.patch is a derived work of your metagcc, which is a derived work
of both gcc and metafont, so you cannot distribute metagcc.patch unless
it satisfies the terms of gcc's license and metafont's license.

Even if that is not the case, wouldn't this script constitute
"contributory infringement"?

>    make all test install clean
> -- no license violation
> End of story.

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: