Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

Garrett Cooper wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I never took care about GPLv2 and v3
> >> differences but know, this seems to come to relevance in some way.
> >
> > I don't seem to understand this.  Why should gpl v3 affect the OS?
> > The
> > output of the compiler isn't affected by the license.  Is it?
> 
> Yes the GPLv3 is `extremely viral' when dealing with proprietary
> innovations and features, compared to GPLv2.

This is complete rubbish, the V3 is viral in exactly the same way as the
V2, the V3 simply closes a hole allowing people to do things which were
obviously against the spirit of the V2, but were able to go through a
hole in the letter of the V2. The spirit of the GPL has always been: "if
you derive software from GPL software, and you distribute it, then it
must be distributed under the GPL, and you must provide source code.
The end users can modify the code, distribute their work, and run the
modified version as they see fit". The Tivo loophole was that the
hardaware runs only signed binaries, hence you cannot run your modified
version. This is completely obviously in contradiction with the spirit
of the GPL, if allowed by the letter. Now the large incertitude in this
game is to know what is exactly a derived software from another one.
This is an extremely vague concept.

> Many companies also have to write in functionality and tie-ins which
> expose portions of the OS, debugging tools, libraries, etc that would
> require them to expose their proprietary secrets. They should be just
> as exposed with GPLv2, but the GPLv3 is more stringent and the FSF is
> ramping up copyright infringement notices

Precisely they were just as exposed with the GPL V2, but were
deliberately ignoring their obligations. the fact that the FSF ramps up
its legal action is the new factor of importance. These legal actions
also serve to define and precise the concept of derivation, and perhaps
commercial companies begin to understand that they are vulnerable.

Anyways the fact that the compiler is GPL V2 or GPL V3 is totally
insignificant with respect to FreeBSD, since it is an established fact
that the result of the compilation is not derived from the compiler,
hence is not subject to the virality of the licence. I think this
is not so clear for C++ code, because the compiler then includes some
stuff of its own in the result, but there is perhaps a special exemption
for that. The last thing FreeBSD needs is losing time and performance to
solve a problem which doesn't exist in the first place, when there are
so many actual and concrete problems which are not fixed.


-- 

Michel TALON