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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:21:53AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > There is nothing in the GPL that forbids functional modifications to
> > GCC to make it integrate better with the environment.

> Treat palladium as a meta-syntactic variable standing for an environment
> where reverse engineering is illegal and where proprietary code and
> proprietary features are present.  Treat "integrate better" as something
> which specifically requires those proprietary features.

OK. Still no problem with distributing the modified GCC as long as it
comes with source and under the terms of the GPL.

I really don't see where you are getting at. Can you explain in little
words and with lots of intermediate results why you think that a GCC
modified for you hypothetical environment would be non-distributable?

> > If it is distributed with source and under the terms of the GPL, then
> > whatever it does is by any reasonable understandning not done "in a
> > proprietary fashion".

> Palladium, of course, will not be released under the terms of the GPL.

No, but not necessary either. Versions of GCC have been done for
*many* proprietary operating systems. Many of these versions have been
folded into the code that the FSF itself distributes. In neither of
these cases has it been any problem that the proprietary operating
system itself is not released under the terms of the GPL.

> > > > Making copies of the derived work is *not* forbidden by the GPL.

> > > You mean because it's outside the scope of the GPL?

> > No, on the contrary. Making copies of the derived work is what the GPL
> > is all about. It exists in order to allow me to make copies of the
> > derived (or non-derived) work.

> It exists to prevent other people from taking away your right to do so.
> However, it accomplishes this by restricting your right to make copies
> if you would not grant others these rights when you did so.

In this case, therefore, it does not restrict my right to distribute
the hypothetical Palladium GCC, because I would give the recipient the
same rights as I got myself.

Henning Makholm                          "What has it got in its pocketses?"

Reply to: