Re: Now it's my compiler!
Alexander: thank you for contributing to my copyleft news post. I've added your name to the copyright statement. Now everyone will be free to use your ASCII art, subject to the terms of the GPL of course. ;-) Alexander Terekhov wrote: Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown and Alexander Terekhov. This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Have a nice day Pete! _ _ |A| |A| |l| |l| |e| |e| |x| |x| |a| |a| |n| /^^^\ |n| _|d|_ (| o |) _|d|_ _| |e| | _(_---_)_ | |e| |_ | | |r| |' |_| |_| `| |r| | | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo Pete ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Hi Trolls, I just realised, none of the GPL trolls dared to quote my GPL'd news post! Are you afraid of having to license your own post under the GPL, so starting the process of assimilation? Well I've got news for you! The process of assimilation is proceeding very nicely without your help. Why do you think no one has heard from Darl McBride recently? Is it because he resigned from SCO? Or is it because he has been assimilated into the Free Software Foundation, and now spends his days making the stale sandwiches that you too will be eating one day? Pete Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown. This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this post. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Pete Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I've got news for you! The process of assimilation is proceeding very nicely without your help. Why do you think no one has heard from Darl McBride recently? Is it because he resigned from SCO? Or is it because he has been assimilated into the Free Software Foundation, and now spends his days making the stale sandwiches that you too will be eating one day? Tsk, after all the damage he did, that was the worst job they could find for him? I would've had him cleaning the sewers with his toothbrush. -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and| |in| get out the puncture repair kit! | | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf | ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Pete Chown wrote: Hi Trolls, [...] Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown. This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Have a nice day Pete! _ _ |A| |A| |l| |l| |e| |e| |x| |x| |a| |a| |n| /^^^\ |n| _|d|_ (| o |) _|d|_ _| |e| | _(_---_)_ | |e| |_ | | |r| |' |_| |_| `| |r| | | | | / \ | | \/ / /(. .)\ \ \/ \/ / / | . | \ \ \/ \ \/ /||Y||\ \/ / \__/ || || \__/ () () || || ooO Ooo regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
It would be pleasent if those who try to advocate sofware freedom did not drop to the levels of the trolls, and used the same nasty tactics. Yes, the trolls are very nasty, be we are better than that, no? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your SUV too. He. He. You have realised! Already we have assimilated your newsreader. Soon we will have your computer, and then we will have you! You may not believe it now, but in five years time you will be toiling in the basement of the Free Software Foundation. Sustained only by stale sandwiches and endless cups of cheap coffee, you will spend your days advancing the plan for world domination. Pete Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown. This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this post. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit o' wisdom: On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. OK, I'm missing something here. You certainly are, Ghost. Rjack is a troll. Nothing more. If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda. -- Entreprenuer, n.: A high-rolling risk taker who would rather be a spectacular failure than a dismal success. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit o' wisdom: On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. OK, I'm missing something here. You certainly are, Ghost. Rjack is a troll. Nothing more. If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda. Looks like Bell Micro did just that! Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning? Keep him off the kitchen table. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:43:33 +0200, Hadron wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris Ahlstrom wrote: After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit o' wisdom: On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. OK, I'm missing something here. You certainly are, Ghost. Rjack is a troll. Nothing more. If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda. Looks like Bell Micro did just that! Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning? Keep him off the kitchen table. Sincerely, Rjack :) Chris is the group fluffer. He me toos to any one in need that he sees as an advocate. Often from the kneeling position. He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6 months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move: You will notice Roy's arm at the top: http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dolly%20Dames%20Products%20011.jpg *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-; Hysterical! Pay no attention to that hand behind the curtain!!! -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ Please Visit www.linsux.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rjack wrote: My third party compiler is none of their damn business. The GPL attempts to insure that users of a program can run, read, change, and share it. In order for a user to be able to make changes and run the resulting program, he must be given the source and told how to build it from source. (It could have required that the compiler be made available as well, but I expect the FSF felt that there were too many systems where non-free compilers must be used for this to be tenable.) It is an independent work. You get into inappropriate conditions very fast that road, since the compiler has dependencies of its own. -- 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
Re: Now it's my compiler!
chrisv [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your SUV too. He. He. No. That would be copyright misuse. Someone grabbed the troll's brain, and didn't give it back. Not everybody keeps track of small change. -- 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
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Moshe Goldfarb. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris is the group fluffer. He me toos to any one in need that he sees as an advocate. Often from the kneeling position. He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6 months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move: You will notice Roy's arm at the top: http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dolly%20Dames%20Products%20011.jpg *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-; Hysterical! Oh! That's not a hand. That's Marti. Can't you see Liarmutt's eyes are crossed? Pay no attention to that hand behind the curtain!!! -- What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans The Linux Butcher Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body you're embarrassed at being an idiot? -- DFS [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would be pleasent if those who try to advocate sofware freedom did not drop to the levels of the trolls, and used the same nasty tactics. Yes, the trolls are very nasty, be we are better than that, no? Quality is a secondary consideration. -- 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
Re: Now it's my compiler!
On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack wrote: You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler. Do so! http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html begin excerpts Section 1, Paragraph 3-5: The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source. Section 6, paragraph 3: A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work. end excerpts Boiled down, it appears that an arbitrary developer: [a] needs to be able to provide source code for his modifications, and source code or a link to source code for a FOSS product, as one might expect for the GPL, upon request. [b] does NOT need to provide any information/media/software regarding his compilation environment beyond that needed for a runnable distribution of any derived/compiled product, though it may need to identify the proper environment (e.g., icc on an x86). See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs . As an aside, I would hope that the building of the FOSS code would be possible using GNU products such as GCC, and certainly if the product does not build, one can attempt modification and rerelease back upstream. Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I affiliated with GNU. [snipped] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. Quote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. To wit: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. The name of the compiler, its version number and where it can be acquired is also none of their damn business. [P]art of the Corresponding Source my ass. You FOSS groupies are obviously a brick shy of a full load. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. Sincerely, Rjack :) Idiot -- We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack wrote: You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler. Do so! http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html begin excerpts The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. . . . [b] does NOT need to provide any information/media/software regarding his compilation environment beyond that needed for a runnable distribution of any derived/compiled product, though it may need to identify the proper environment (e.g., icc on an x86). http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html begin excerpt 4.2.3 What About the Compiler? . . . If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that *must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source*. This information is essential to anyone who wishes to produce a binary. It is not the intent of the GPL to require you to distribute third-party software tools to your customer (provided the tools themselves are not based on the GPL’d software shipped), but *we do believe it requires* that you give the user all the essential non-proprietary facts that you had at your disposal to build the software. Therefore, if you choose not to distribute the compiler, you should include a readme about where you got it, what version it was, and who to contact to acquire it, regardless of whether your compiler is FOSS, proprietary, or internally developed. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Now it's my compiler!
First the GPL gobbled up your source code, the wife, kids, family pets and your car. Now it gobbles up your compiler too. Alas! If they want my compiler, they'll have to pry it from my cold lifeless hands! To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html * * * * * * * * * * 4.2.3 What About the Compiler? The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources, inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 – has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts. . . . If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. This information is essential to anyone who wishes to produce a binary. It is not the intent of the GPL to require you to distribute third-party software tools to your customer (provided the tools themselves are not based on the GPL’d software shipped), but we do believe it requires that you give the user all the essential non-proprietary facts that you had at your disposal to build the software. Therefore, if you choose not to distribute the compiler, you should include a readme about where you got it, what version it was, and who to contact to acquire it, regardless of whether your compiler is FOSS, proprietary, or internally developed. * * * * * * * * * * Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. Quote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. -- 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
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Sigh. The antecedent of it is the compiler, not the program. The document says that since you most likely cannot ship the compiler, you should provide enough information about it so that people who get the sources know what they need to get if they want to build the program. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
David Kastrup wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. Quote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. To wit: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. The name of the compiler, its version number and where it can be acquired is also none of their damn business. [P]art of the Corresponding Source my ass. You FOSS groupies are obviously a brick shy of a full load. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Peter Köhlmann wrote: Rjack wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. Quote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. To wit: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as part of the Corresponding Source. My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. The name of the compiler, its version number and where it can be acquired is also none of their damn business. [P]art of the Corresponding Source my ass. You FOSS groupies are obviously a brick shy of a full load. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. None of their damn business. Sincerely, Rjack :) Idiot Very substantive. Thank you! Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program. The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically find in commercial software, not about the GPL. You just misunderstood the wording, and are trying to cover up your mistake with bluster. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program. The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically find in commercial software, not about the GPL. Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie put-down. How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I use. I stand by that assertion. You just misunderstood the wording, and are trying to cover up your mistake with bluster. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Andrew Halliwell wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Tobin wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program. The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically find in commercial software, not about the GPL. Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie put-down. The only strawmen here are ones created by you. How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I use. I stand by that assertion. Learn to read, thicko. All he was saying is, with a GPL compiler you can distribute it.\ With a commercial compiler, you can not distribute it. Which is complete, 100% bullshit. You don't control commercial compilers so how do know? With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for the privilage. With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for the privilege. With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are you bound by the GPL yourself. By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking. By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie? Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: OK, I'm missing something here. [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case? It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler you use and that's enough. The GPL could have made distributing the compiler a requirement, but that would have so hampered free software as to make it useless, so the FSF didn't do that. completely *ignores* the issue of a support API I think that usually falls under the system software exception of the GPL. But tricks are played with this. For example, AdaCore releases their public GPL version of their Ada compiler with a runtime library licensed solely under the GPL, so any programs built with it that use the runtime can only be distributed as free software under the GPL. If you pay them for support, they give you a runtime library licensed under a GPL + program exception rule, which allows you to distribute it linked into non-free programs. (All of it is licensed under the GPL, so a paying customer is free to redistribute it to others, but I doubt any of them bother.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: it's none of your damn business I'm making it my business. You don't like it, don't use my code. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Andrew Halliwell wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is complete, 100% bullshit. You don't control commercial compilers so how do know? So... You're now claiming that you can re-distribute a commercial compiler? Do you KNOW what software piracy is? Do you know what a contract to distribute is? Do you what the first sale doctrine is? It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL source code with. With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for the privilage. With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for the privilege. So? Reversing what I said doesn't make it any less true. With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are you bound by the GPL yourself. By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking. By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie? No, look it up. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: Do you know what a contract to distribute is? It's not the GPL, which is a license. Do you what the first sale doctrine is? Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then you need no permission from the copyright holder and so the license, whether it's the GPL or Adobe's EULA, doesn't matter. It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL source code with. The GPL makes it its business. You don't want to comply, don't copy and distribute. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Hyman Rosen wrote: The Ghost In The Machine wrote: OK, I'm missing something here. [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case? It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler you use and that's enough. You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler. The GPL could have made distributing the compiler a requirement, but that would have so hampered free software as to make it useless, so the FSF didn't do that. Could'a, Would'a, Should'a -- but didn't. He. He. completely *ignores* the issue of a support API I think that usually falls under the system software exception of the GPL. But tricks are played with this. For example, AdaCore releases their public GPL version of their Ada compiler with a runtime library licensed solely under the GPL, so any programs built with it that use the runtime can only be distributed as free software under the GPL. If you pay them for support, they give you a runtime library licensed under a GPL + program exception rule, which allows you to distribute it linked into non-free programs. (All of it is licensed under the GPL, so a paying customer is free to redistribute it to others, but I doubt any of them bother.) Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Do you know what a contract to distribute is? It's not the GPL, which is a license. Do you what the first sale doctrine is? Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then you need no permission from the copyright holder and so the license, whether it's the GPL or Adobe's EULA, doesn't matter. It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL source code with. The GPL makes it its business. You don't want to comply, don't copy and distribute. I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your SUV too. He. He. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
Rjack wrote: I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your SUV too. He. He. No. That would be copyright misuse. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Now it gobbles up your compiler too. To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler. Quote: If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your compiler. it obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum OK, I'm missing something here. If, legally (obviously technical considerations are a different axis): [1] GPL code + GPL compiler = distributable binary but [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case? Section 4.2.3 is not all that clear on this question, and completely *ignores* the issue of a support API (which a C++ compiler must have in order to handle things such as dynamic_cast and the ability to call the kernel), though in all fairness the author might have simply bundled it in with the proprietary, third-party compiler concept instead. Granted, if said compiler accepts constructs (#pragma is the only one coming to mind) the GPL variant does not, there's a few issues that may have to be worked through; ideally, an astute developer will feed back a new version of the distributed source with appropriate corrections. Fortunately, in C++'s case, one can use #if or #ifdef, and GNU does provide a number of tools (autogen, autoconf, etc. etc.) which might assist in handling variations of support API/libc() on various systems. Most C++ compilers also provide predefined symbols for use in #if/#ifdef. 4.2.3 *is* clear in that one need not distribute the actual compiler in order to meet the GPL requirement, although ideally (as the second paragraph points out) one could easily do so if the compiler is itself FOSS. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:22:08 -0500, Rjack wrote: Don't insert your Hey, moron, if you don't like the GPL, don't involve yourself with it. Problem solved. It sounds to me you want it both ways. You want to use free source code, licensed under the GPL, and then you want to compile it and call it your own. It doesn't work that way. Don't like it? Lump it. -- RonB There's a story there...somewhere ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
