Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Why not?
> Because palladium is a proprietary work, and it's more than just an OS.
> I'll grant that if the changes were limited to what was required to get
> the OS to support it, that would probably be distributable. But that's
> not the kind of example I was proposing.
> I was not proposing "make gcc work on that OS", I was proposing functional
> modifications to GCC to make it integrate better with that environment.
> As a rough idea, imagine if gcc were made to support special keywords or
> control files to make it easier to build programs which use palladium's
> proprietary encryption and digital rights management facilities object
> model. Or, more generally, imagine any change which makes gcc into
> something that works in a proprietary fashion.
It already has special support for the Windows registry. And support for
outputting assembly language which can only be assembled with proprietary
assemblers. What's your point?
This would be a piece of "free software" which depended on a piece on
"non-free software" to function. In other words, it would be "contrib".
There are none so blind as those who will not see.