>Clarifying is not the same as exemplifying. Exemplifying means to provide
>*examples*.
So? At least to me an example clarifies a lot in most cases. Without the
example that
a compiler is a component of an operating system I would never have thought of
that.
>> So as far as GPLv2 is concerned compiler is a major component of the system.
>No. Certainly not *any* compiler, is it? What about Salford Fortran?
>So why MSVC++?
In the context of GPLv2 license and software we of course need to read
the compiler as something that is used to build the software that is
the subject of the license, why would we/GPL talk about any compiler?
I hope I did not talk about any compiler, that was not my intention. I was
just saying that this GPLv2 clearly states that a compiler can be a major
component of a system.
>> And indeed without a compiler (or some such) it is not feasible to have a
>> system.
>
>Oh, since when? I think there were dozens of systems without compilers.
Again this comes to defining words ("no I did not have sexual relation ship
with that woman" as Bill said). But I was just reflecting that to build
any serious computer system you need some language and compiler
or interpreter and in that sense it is part of the system. But that is
not relevant, again IMO, to the discussion.
>> Yes, M$ sells and distributes it separately but to me this
>> (what and how Microsoft distributes things) does not define what a system
>> is. Which of course begs the question who defines what a system is ;-)
>Ultimately, a court does, that's clear. But its decision will be
>driven mainly by common sense and experts' opinions.
No disagreement there I hope.
>> I'm not sure about the implications of the plural, if any. However I do not
>> see what other component 'that' could refer to than those previously
>> mentioned in the paragraph? It says something ('anything') is usually
>> (normally) distributed with components and this something is given exemption
>> from the source code distribution requirement if the component it usually is
>> distributed with is not distributed.
>So, if you distribute MSVC++ runtime library, do you or do you not
>distribute MSVC++?
In my POV MSVC is a C compiler and its goal is to transform C source code
into executable code. The library is not part of MSVC, it does not actually need
the library to function (to compile code).
>And precisely how many portions of MSVC++ you need to include to start
>distributing MSVC++?
Not sure where you are heading with this argument? You are not
distributing MSVC until you distribute it as a whole, what you are distributing
if you distribute parts, is , well, parts. But so?
To me it is clear that the standard libraries are just and implementation
detail of how most C-compilers implement , they could be implemented without
them
if the writers of compilers would want to do that.
And, as should be plain to everyone, my view is that the whole purpose of
this paragraph in GPLv2 was to allow at least some kind of standard libraries
to be distributed without source code in binary form.
>> The wording could have been better but still I do not see any real ambiquity
>> there.
>>
>I do - see above.
I see.
>> Indeed it depends on that. But I offer to you that we cannot regard
>> MSVC++ runtime library as component because the license does not offer
>> anything to suggest this interpretation.
>That's not enough of a reason. The license also does not suggest the opposite.
Yes, but we should, I think, try to find support for reasoning
from the license, it is difficult to reason from something that
it does not suggest, don't you think?
>> On the other hand it says
>> (clearly or less clearly, depending on my/your point of view)
>> that a compiler is a component
>depending on your interpretation of the parenthesis, it says that a
>compiler is/may be a component *of the operating system*. You can't
>just skip the rest of the sentence - it's there.
Sorry, you seem to be reading also my words differently from what I meant.
My fault, I'm sure, not being a native speaker. I don't think I disagreed
that a compiler is/may be a component of the operating system. Certainly
was not my intention.
But even so what would it matter? According
to the terms there is something that is normally distributed together with
a component of an operating system, that something being exempt
from the source code distribution requirement.
>It's just GPL3 that
>defines "Major Component" as a concept. Here, it's a component (with
>small c) of something and that something is clearly stated to be an
>operating system. Only components of operating systems qualify.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
I'm saying that GPL license takes the view that the compiler that is used to
build
the program being licensed is a component of the operating system under which
the program is to be executed. And I'm saying that the standard libraries
are that something the license refers to when it says 'normally distributed
with'.
Extrapolating from the background of Unix and CC and Richard Stahlman I think
it is a reasonable conclusion that when the text was written unix was the
system and
CC was the he had in mind and this paragraph was put in just to avoid the kind
of situation we are now discussing. I'm confident he foresee this sort of
situations.
In this sort of context the words seem to make sense.
>> and along with something is normally
>> distributed, that something presumably being in someway related to
>> the issue of running and/or compiling programs, otherwise there
>> would have been no point in mentioning it in the text. In view
>> of that I construe that a runtime library is that 'anything' referred
>> in the language of the license.
>>
>yes, of course the rest *would be* true.
>>
>>> It seems to me that one of the reason to add language related to
>>> this paragraph into GPLv3 was to clarify this. From that I conclude
>>> that the the clarified paragraph in v3 also clarifies the intention
>>> of the v2 in this respect.
>>
>> Maybe. From my point of view, it also lessens the restrictions.
> I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that IMO v2 already
> allows what we are discussing here.
>Well, since I'm effectively saying the opposite (or, more precisely, I
>say that the wording does not evidently imply your interpretation), we
>are still in disagreement.
I'm cool with that. If you want to take the view that according to
GPLV2 it is not allowed to pre-link program with VC++ std libries even when the
full source code of the program is available and no ones Freedoms are affected
and when allowing pre-linking would further those Freedoms,
that is fine with me. And even if you are just argumenting to
get through the weary hours of existence, that is cool with me too,
that is effective what I'm doing ;-)
cheers Kusti
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
