quot; The GPL is evil and deserves to be struck
down.
Oops - I think this will get me kicked out of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke
and accepted.
Everybody would have been ready for it, and nobody would be upset. Oh well.
It's been entertaining. gcc@gcc.gnu.org is normally pretty dull to
read... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke
Copying David Daney's response to contrast against it:
GCC is a mature piece of software that works really well and it is in a
programming domain which is not as well understood and for people such
as myself, I would be intimidated from the start, to delve in and expect
any contributions I mak
On 04/23/2010 06:18 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
My personal opinion is that this legal reason is a *huge*
bottleneck against external contributions. In particular, because
you need to deal with it *before* submitting any patch, which,
given the complexity (4MLOC) and growth rate (
On 04/23/2010 08:37 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
However, I would believe that most GCC contributors do not actively
check their patch against the US patent system (because I perceive the
US patent system to be very ill w.r.t. software). I confess I don't do
that - it would be a full time &
On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
I also never understood what would happen if I had a brain illness to
the point of submitting illegal patches (I have no idea if such things
could exist; I am supposing today that if I wrote every character of
every pa
On 04/25/2010 11:20 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
So, is the copyright disclaimer implicit in the patch submission? Who
defines the conditions?
That web page is everything that
On 04/25/2010 05:49 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
So how much liability is required for somebody to accept in order to be
allowed to contribute to GCC?
This was answered already. It's the same for EVERY software project
(not unique to GCC): if I steal somebody's copyrighted material and
"cont
On 04/25/2010 06:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I couldn't see somebody suing me (my bank account hovers pretty low
most of the time). Companies are not going to sue nobodies such as
myself because there is no money in it. So, in practice, is there a
difference or not?
No, because then the F
On 04/25/2010 11:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 01:12, Mark Mielke wrote:
The real reason for FSF copyright assignment is control. The FSF wants to
control GCC.
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to
On 04/25/2010 11:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 04:30, Richard Kenner wrote:
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to anyone, whether under GPL or whatever
terms, FSF has to hold the copyright, or it can't sue an
On 04/26/2010 12:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mielke writes:
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
I thought "clean room implementatio
On 04/26/2010 02:00 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
If I own 1% of the code of a program and somebody makes it non-free, I'm
going to be upset, but probably not enough to either sue the person or try
to organize a group do to collectively. But if instead I assigned that
software to a group that decide
On 04/26/2010 03:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner writes
w.r.t. "hoarding", I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to th
On 04/26/2010 11:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE")
the software and nothing els
On 04/26/2010 07:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
specification and by the Linux glibc manpage:
DESCRIPTION
The memcpy() function copies n bytes from memory area src to
memory
area dest. The memory areas should not overlap. Use memmove(3)
if the
bject? I'm interested in reading about the
former. I have no interest at all in reading about the latter. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I not understand the issue?
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sonable or incorrect?
I do not understand your position.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
e store in the control region) and expect that the store indeed only
happens in that control region. And this expectation is misguided.
If this is correct (condition makes no function calls and no volatiles
are used, then I understand and agree.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21 matches
Mail list logo
