Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #75788Re: Free Software Users == dupes ?
From: John Coolidge
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 1990 20:00
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 1990 20:00
40 lines
3052 bytes
3052 bytes
dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >In article <1990Mar30.031346.18362@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>, >coolidge@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: >> This is much more problematic, because header files are, indeed, source >> code (at least in C++) because they contain inlines. >No, they're source code because they're source code. Code needn't >generate executable commands to qualify as source code. This is true, as far is it goes. But it doesn't go very far. >> On the other hand, header files are _also_ interface specifications... >It doesn't matter what else they are, they're source code. >Copyrighted, licensed, source code subject to the GNU GPL. I think this matters a great deal. _Are_ the header files for libg++ interface specifications? Are they source code? Are they both? As interface spcifications --- which I hope that the FSF wouldn't dream of copyrighting --- they can be quickly (_very_ quickly) reproduced. Someone with a day or two could produce copyleft-free versions of the interface-specification parts of the headers. On the other hand, the inline code parts of the headers are more difficult. They're _not_ interface specifications, and they _can't_ be mechanically rebuilt from the interface specifications. On the other hand, most inlines, by the very nature of C++, are very short code blocks. It's also possible to tell compilers to generate calls rather than inlines. In this way, it's possible to build most of the inlines and produce calls for the rest, all using copyleft- free header files. And this, in turn, makes the argument that, by using libg++ or the header files, without linking with libg++ oneself, one somehow runs afoul of the copyleft rather silly. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Mar30.200035.25558@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidgeReferences:
<2449@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <970010@gore.com> <NELSON.90Mar27220308@image.clarkson.edu> <1990Mar28.045234.27003@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <MIKE.90Mar28135129@turing.cs.unm.edu> <5435@scolex.sco.COM> <1990Mar30.031346.18362@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990Mar30.153228.Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1a1f932bc12166f3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1990-03-30 12:00:35 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge From: coolidge@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Free Software Users == dupes ? Message-ID: <1990Mar30.200035.25558@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 30 Mar 90 20:00:35 GMT References: <2449@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <970010@gore.com> <NELSON.90Mar27220308@image.clarkson.edu> <1990Mar28.045234.27003@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <MIKE.90Mar28135129@turing.cs.unm.edu> <5435@scolex.sco.COM> <1990Mar30.031346.18362@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990Mar30.153228. Sender: news@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Lines: 40 Posted: Fri Mar 30 21:00:35 1990