Hi Arnaud,
This is all nice and well and I'm sure you're having lots of fun with
these discussions, but gcc@gcc.gnu.org is NOT an appropriate
list for such discussions, so please move this discussion elsewhere,
there are people on this list who would rather not receive these unrelated
emails, th
> The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing
> list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of
> things so I WON'T "commit the crime".
>
> I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any
> problems; I really want to serve my one trillion us
The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing
list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of
things so I WON'T "commit the crime".
I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any problems;
I really want to serve my one trillion users
Hi
You missed the part about "(and is used in practice)".
This terminology is superficial. Looks carelessly written. A tool with
either one user or one million users would equally fit the definition.
You can't take something that is not permissible under copyright law
I think you are wr
> Yes, the case is that the two pieces can be independent since they can
> be used with third-party programs. The one piece would be GPL-ed tool
> flow and the other piece a kind of "specialized" assembler. I recall
> that many proprietary assemblers did/do exist, e.g. for x86. I think
> we
Hi all,
what I basically want to do is a kind of "MMIX", an abstract machine
that amongst other uses could be amenable to hardware compilation.
This specific use is not of interest to neither this list nor GCC
developers in general. There are many other uses for such a
"representation" su
Hi all,
I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and
believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing
by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will
contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list -
or an
Hi Robert
One principle that can be applied is that if you have a program in
two pieces, then they are independent if either of them can be used
(and is used in practice) with other programs. But if the two pieces
can only work together, that seems part of the same program. I tried
to get this p
On 11/7/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme
conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the
people on this list can.
A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are
the c
> Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme
> conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the
> people on this list can.
A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are
the copyright holders. If they say it's OK,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
> I don't find any of these as an actual showstopper. The FSF is not entitled to
> decide whether a target architecture is a spoof or not as long as it is
> properly defined.
Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your schem
On 11/7/2012 9:44 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that,
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
Hi Richard
Would these solve my problem?
No, not as long as it's *your* machine. It would need to be a machine
designed by a third-party that's completely independent of you.
I would like to follow the approach of let's say MMIX (a virtual
architecture).
1. Write a totally GPL-ed tool f
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
The legal issue is in the
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
Then I'd suggest trying in other EU nations. I am not a lawyer, but
I understand that most of the relevant issues are the same throughout
the EU.
> Would these solve my problem?
No, not as long as it's *your* machine.
Hi Richard,
If you have a legal question, you should ask an attorney who specializes
in copyright law as it applies to computer software. Do not rely on
anything you get as a response to your question online.
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
If NAC i
17 matches
Mail list logo
