Re: GCC 4.4 run-time license and non-GPLv3 compilers
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:49:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Stéphane Glondu:
> > The FSF obviously wants to outlaw proprietary compilers that use
> > intermediate representations of GCC. Using GCC as a C-to-asm compiler is
> > fine, even in a proprietary project. The FAQ states explicitly that a
> > program generating a C file, for example (which might be a compiler in
> > fact), doesn't take part in the "compilation process". So one could even
> > make a proprietary compiler using C as an intermediate langage, and GCC
> > for the final stage, I guess.
>
> Well, this is an argument why the FSF might not like the effect of the
> run-time library exception on Objective Caml. I don't think it's a
Just for information, the run-time library exception on Objective Caml
was suggested by Richard Stallman himself, back when the Objective Caml
licence was non-free. He did give some example of another case, in GCC
itself if i remember well, where a similar exception was used.
His mail is probably in the archive, but if it is not, i would be glad
to dig into my mail archive and resend the email, and maybe you could
use it in your communication attempt ? Maybe we could address Richard
Stallman himself on this topic too ?
BTW, Florian, please forward this email to debian-legal and debian-gcc,
as i am being censored and this mail won't reach those lists, even
though it is on-topic.
/me is still disgusted by seeing debian squible about minor
non-free-ness like these, and having no problem applying stalinist
censorship on its own mailing list, freedom is not only for software,
you know. But then, i have seen that DDs are just a bunch of hypocrits,
in seeing how the non-free firmware case was handled.
Sadly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: