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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
