Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> That's "if", not "only if". The problem is whether the combined work is >> more than a mere aggregation of its part so that the original >> constituents can no longer be told apart well enough to be licensed >> differently. > > Let's speak of the source code to an extension, not the entire > compiler consisting of the original compiler built with the new > extension included. That extension is written from scratch, but > is written to interoperate with the data structures of GCC. The > source therefore contains many names which also appear in the > GCC text, and likely many idiomatic uses of the data structures > which appear similar to uses found in the GCC code. > > Such an extension, standing alone in source code, does not require > permission from the GCC rights holders to be copied and distributed. > >>> Attempting to use copyright to prevent >>> interoperability is considered by the courts to be a serious breach, >> >> A serious breach of what? > > Use of copyright law. They don't allow it. > >> There is no clear and consistent case law with regard to linking stuff. >> When in doubt, you will try to make sure that decisions leaning either >> way will not put you too much in harm's way. > > Yes there is - video game system manufacturers tried and failed to use > copyright law to require that independent game creators pay them for the > right to create games on their systems. >
Well, it would seem that the entire GPL issue is not so easy after all... BTW Alan, if it was you that wrote cc-mode for emacs : hats off to you. It's excellent. -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
