On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 22:28 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Hello All, [GCC list, MELT group, and David Malcolm -python plugin- and > Diego Novillo -plugin enthusiast & maintainer] > > Reminder: IANAL, ie I (Basile) am not a lawyer! But I am a free software > enthusiast and I like a lot the GPLv3.... > > As you know, GCC has some technical devices to invite plugin developers > to make GPL compliant plugins. > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugin-API.html > > This is done thru the plugin_is_GPL_compatible symbol. Of course, some > dishonest person could technically have & distribute a proprietary GCC > plugin defining that symbol (IANAL, but I believe it won't be accepted > in court, even if technically feasible).
[...] > So my concrete questions to the GCC community are: > > Do meta-plugins like MELT (& probably Python plugin) should be concerned > about having some device to check compatibility with GPL licensing? I > believe that yes... (David Malcolm: what is your feeling on this? How do > you deal with that concern inside your Python plugin?) [I am also not a lawyer, and I don't speak for Red Hat in this] The Python plugin contains the symbol "plugin_is_GPL_compatible", and is, as far as I know, GPL compatible. The source code declares itself to be under the GPLv3 with the "(at your option) any later version" clause. However it doesn't make any technical attempts to enforce that the code running within it is license-compatible. FWIW, I am skeptical of the ability of a computer to correctly (I) determine which licenses are applicable on any given code and (II) interpret these licenses. Hence I believe that any such attempt to enforce licensing would be both (a) doomed to have both false positives and false negatives, and (b) be irritating for the end-user, for only marginal benefit. (My 2 cents; hope it's helpful) Dave
