🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4996@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> ...So, the question is: do BISON and GCC have different
> restrictions?  If so, why? If not, what's the real story?

> I'm not saying Stallman is wrong to have a restriction like this,
> I'd just like to know what it means.

In article <BOB.89Jul14073332@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
> As usual, you're asking and rumoring in the wrong place.

Would you care to explain what you mean by this particular phrasing? Oh,
you did... see below.

> If you were to ask an original question on gnu.gcc you'd probably find
> someone qualified to give you "the real story".

% grep '^gnu' /usr/lib/news/active
%

> Or better yet, read the GNU General Public License first, which
> addresses such matters directly.

Yes. Now if documents such as this were self-explanatory there would be
no need of lawyers (some might argue that anyway, but that's a horse of
a different color).

Paragraph 2:

$   The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the
$ mercy of those companies.  By contrast, our general public license is
$ intended to give everyone the right to share GNU CC...

Most laudable. But here's the problem:

Section 2b:

$   2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU CC or any portion of it,
$ and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of
$ Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following:

...

$     b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
$     that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU CC or
$     any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third
$     parties on terms identical to those contained in this License
$     Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive
$     warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).

This paragraph is what I'm asking about. I believe that this effectively
prevents you from making any use, in however small a part, of any run-time
library for BISON, GCC, etc...

If the GCC compiler contains any literal code sequences, however small,
that enter the generated object file then it can be argued that you are
creating a derived work. How small a code sequence this involves is subject
to debate, but given past legal decisions I would hesitate to use something
as small as "JMP CRET". Lawyers (and judges, who are by and large lawyers)
are notorious for obscure blindnesses.

It's reasonable to assume that rewriting crt0.o and libc.a would do the job,
but I wouldn't bet my company on it.

> Don't ask me, because I'm not the right one to answer - I have nothing
> to do with the FSF, so I can't represent their position.  It just irks
> me to see rumors being mongered in authoritative-sounding tones of
> voice, but actually in a knowledge vacuum.

#ifdef FLAME

As you can see, *THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M DOING*. I have the GCC license. I
don't have the BISON license, but you insist it's virtually identical.

Get off your FSF high-horse. If you have nothing to contribute but innuendo,
please abstain.

#endif
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Multiprocessors are just a
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' | way of using up excess memory
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  | bandwidth. - mark@mips.com