In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In (ii), the new code generator is an extension of GCC, using its data >> structures, conventions etc. This new code, if it is released, must be >> released under the GPL. Just how it's slotted into the existing GCC is >> immaterial.
> You are wrong. Extensions fall under the GPL only if they incorporate > GPLed code within them by inclusion, not by reference. The notion of "inclusion" doesn't make sense when talking about computer programs. Tell me, is an intricate C Macro "included in" or "referred to by" the extension? What about a data structure it uses? > That is, if the extension is written by taking existing code and > modifying, it falls under the copyright of the existing work (and is > a derivative work as well, .... Yes. > ..., so that the GCC copyright holders could not use it without the > permission of its author). Yes, sort of. But the new author is not licensed to distribute his derivative work at all, except under the GPL. > If the extension is written as a separate new work, it does not fall > under the GPL, even if it makes extensive use of GPLed header files > and of data structures that appear in the GPLed code. In that case, the extension is derived from the source code of the data structures, and thus isn't a "separate" new work. > Attempting to use copyright to prevent interoperability is considered > by the courts to be a serious breach, and is not allowed. Hey, that's quite artistic, Hyman! :-) Interoperability has nothing to do with what's been discussed so far. One of the central aims of the GPL is to promote interoperability, as you're well aware. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
