🚀 go-pugleaf

> Allan Pratt says:
>I find the copyleft annoying, because it means I can't use GCC to
>develop programs which Atari hopes to profit from: code generated by
>the C compiler, and certainly code with FSF library modules included,
>count as derivative works.  GCC is the best compiler I can't use.

This is completely UNTRUE.  RMS has gone to some lengths to explain that code
generated by GCC does NOT fall under copyleft, and the root modules (linked in
to all executables) have been placed in the PUBLIC DOMAIN specifically
so that this was not a problem.  It is true, however, that any copylefted
libraries may not be included if the copyleft is to be circumvented, but
allowing the end user to link the program is not a violation.  If NeXT can use
GCC, so can Atari.

>		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>		     Version 1, February 1989

>Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its
>derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
>the other work under the scope of these terms.

This allows distribution of proprietary object files with the GNU libraries and
sources.
 
RMS' definition of a derivative work says that the work must include GNU sources
in it.  Any program that is translator from one form to another does not fall
under the definition of a derivative work (such as GAWK output, for example.)
One case where the user must be careful is in BISON, where a template of the
parser (which is GNU software, of course) is included with the generated parser
code/tables.  I believe that this makes the entire parser (and therefore
anything that it is linked with in the executable, if provided) fall under
copyleft.  I may be wrong, but I don't think so.  However, if you choose to
write your own parser template and modify BISON to accept it, then you can do
what you wish with the output, I think.

Please don't give GNU a black eye by disseminating false information!

Dave Smythe
dsmythe@cup.portal.comm