🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Pierce <twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>GPL," I doubt it.  In the first place, I hope you're not
>seriously arguing that placing a compiler under the GPL
>causes all code written for the language implemented by that
>compiler to be GPLed as well.  Even the FSF -- tyrannical

If we apply the arguments FSF used last year during the gmp/RIPEN
debate, then if the only implementation of that language is GPL'ed,
you could only distribute source code written in that language
under GPL, because leaving it to the end user to obtain the compiler
is equivalent to shipping the compiler yourself if there is only
one compiler available.  As soon as someone else implements the
language (no matter how badly), it will then be OK to ship source
in that language under non-GPL licenses.

Note that when only the GPL'ed compiler exists, distributing *binaries*
compiled with that compiler would be OK, because distributing binaries does
not require the end user to obtain the GPL'ed compiler, and is so not
equivalent to shipping the compiler.

In other words, using FSF's interpretation of GPL and of copyright law, we
have a situation where distributing a binary of a program under a restrictive
license is OK, but distributing source is not!

--Tim Smith