Hi Andrew
AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was
to protect my freedom.
No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been
said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the
GPL to protect the rights of developers to impose res
On 11/07/12 12:08, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
> AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was
> to protect my freedom.
No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been
said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the
GPL to protec
> > b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with
> > the standard library exception.
>
> I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention.
But most of GCC, which you are "linking in" by virtue of a custom
interface, does *not* have the library exception, so you ar
On 11/7/2012 8:17 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
I disagree.
I think you are wrong, however it is not really productive to express it.
I would not casually ignore Richard's opinion, he has FAR more
experience here than you do, and far more familiarity with
the issues involved.
Hi Richard,
If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list:
it's not going to be well-received.
I don't want to sound b@d@ss or something, even though I am ^_^. This
is not my saying, just that my army colleagues wouldn't shake hands
when I fulfilled my service. Ma
> AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom...
If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list:
it's not going to be well-received.
> I know I have come to a scheme that I will not violate the GPL.
I disagree.
Hi Robert,
There are two comfortable ways to conform to the GPL.
a) make all your own stuff GPL'ed
b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with
the standard library exception.
I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention.
Anything else, and you are pret
> I have a few questions to make sure that I will not violate the GPL,v3:
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.
The below is my opinion,
I'm pretty certain I have correctly interpreted GPL,v3. I have good
reasons to believe that. However, I'm willing to read your
interpretation of the GPL,v3, if you have any.
If you are certain enough, then you can of course proceed
on that assumption. I have no interest in giving my opinion
on t
Hi,
You can't expect to get legal advice from a list like this, and if
you do get advice, you can't trust it. You have to consult an attorney
to evaluate issues like this, and even then you can't get
guaranteed definitive advice. Copyright issues are complex,
as Supap Kirtsaeng is discovering in
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
1. Is it possible to use this scheme and not violate the GPL,v3 for
GCC? If I use GIMPLE dumps generated by "-fdump-tree-all" I think
there is a violation (correct me if not). Thus this module should be
FLOSS/GPL'ed, right?
You can't expect to
11 matches
Mail list logo
