"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and > > he does this immediately before listing a number of projects > > that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were > > forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under > > the GPL. > > > > Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free. > > Reality check. GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously. So it > did not "keep" what constituted GCC "free", but rather added > something new to it. > > The C++ front-end was a patch for GCC, so it kept GCC free. If it > didn't, then we would have a non-free fork of GCC. So while it > indirectly added something new (you can comply with the GPL by > licensing the work under the same terms as the GPL), all it did was > keep existing software free.
I thank you for this clear demonstration of your reasoning powers. I entertain no doubt that by now it is obvious to the reader what esteem your arguments are worthy of. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
