------- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-13 07:09 -------
All I want for gcc is that it meets both the letter __and__ the spirit of
applicable contracts and specifications.
First, the GPL is a contract, do __not__ take my word for it but consult a
lawyer.
Second, the C standard can be and should be made part of a contract like a chip
manufacturer would sign with a major purchaser like Ford or GM for embedded
chips and the included support software like gcc. After working 80 hours with
paid overtime) as a highly regarded real-time assembly programmer (before C
became available) I tripled my income (no paid overtime) as an international
telecommunications consultant (really RFP writer, contract negotiator,
acceptance tester), project engineer, co-writer of ITU (International
Telecommunications Union) specifications, and US-representative on technical
supervisory committees. I caused significant economic harm to contractors
(benefiting my employer or organizations I consulted for) by incorporating ITU
standards in contracts. Therefore I have some knowledge of these matters.
Three; gcc-4.3.0 and gcc-4.2.2 will most likely be released under the GPL3
(which not only is intended to replace GPL2 but also the lesser GPL for
libraries)
Four: under the C specification compiler writers can furnish extensions. But,
these extensions are required to have disablers.
Five: Yes, gcc is furnished by gnu.org mithout any warranty, or even being fit
for merchantability. However, __hidden__ items like libgcc might constitute
borderline cases. In the hands of a skillful lawyer, like Mr Edwards, these
hidden items could cause a lot of grief to gnu.org and the maintainers as a
group. Microsoft could even file an amicus curieae brief.
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32314
