Now it's my compiler! - Linux

This is a discussion on Now it's my compiler! - Linux ; Rjack wrote: > Do you know what a contract to distribute is? It's not the GPL, which is a license. > Do you what the first sale doctrine is? Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which you are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Now it's my compiler!

  1. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > Do you know what a contract to distribute is?


    It's not the GPL, which is a license.

    > Do you what the first sale doctrine is?


    Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which
    you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then
    you need no permission from the copyright holder and so the
    license, whether it's the GPL or Adobe's EULA, doesn't matter.

    > It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL
    > source code with.


    The GPL makes it its business. You don't want to comply, don't
    copy and distribute.

  2. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> OK, I'm missing something here.
    >> [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary
    >> precisely *why* is this the case?

    >
    > It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you
    > can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler
    > you use and that's enough.


    You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.

    > The GPL could have made distributing
    > the compiler a requirement, but that would have so hampered free
    > software as to make it useless, so the FSF didn't do that.


    Could'a, Would'a, Should'a -- but didn't.
    He. He.

    >> completely *ignores* the issue of a support API

    >
    > I think that usually falls under the system software exception
    > of the GPL. But tricks are played with this. For example, AdaCore
    > releases their "public GPL" version of their Ada compiler with a
    > runtime library licensed solely under the GPL, so any programs
    > built with it that use the runtime can only be distributed as free
    > software under the GPL. If you pay them for support, they give you
    > a runtime library licensed under a GPL + program exception rule,
    > which allows you to distribute it linked into non-free programs.
    > (All of it is licensed under the GPL, so a paying customer is free
    > to redistribute it to others, but I doubt any of them bother.)


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  3. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> Do you know what a contract to distribute is?

    >
    > It's not the GPL, which is a license.
    >
    >> Do you what the first sale doctrine is?

    >
    > Yes, it's completely orthogonal. If you own something which
    > you are permitted to sell under the first sale doctrine, then
    > you need no permission from the copyright holder and so the
    > license, whether it's the GPL or Adobe's EULA, doesn't matter.
    >
    >> It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL
    >> source code with.

    >
    > The GPL makes it its business. You don't want to comply, don't
    > copy and distribute.


    I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
    your SUV too. He. He.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  4. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.


    Do so!

    > Could'a, Would'a, Should'a -- but didn't.
    > He. He.


    It shouldn't have and didn't.

  5. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
    > your SUV too. He. He.


    No. That would be copyright misuse.

  6. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:

    > I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and your
    > SUV too. He. He.


    You have realised! Already we have assimilated your newsreader. Soon we
    will have your computer, and then we will have you!

    You may not believe it now, but in five years time you will be toiling in
    the basement of the Free Software Foundation. Sustained only by stale
    sandwiches and endless cups of cheap coffee, you will spend your days
    advancing the plan for world domination.

    Pete

    Copyright (c) 2008 Pete Chown.

    This post is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
    published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
    License, or (at your option) any later version.

    This post is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
    General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this post. If not, see .

  7. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen wrote:

    >Rjack wrote:
    >> I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
    >> your SUV too. He. He.

    >
    >No. That would be copyright misuse.


    Someone grabbed the troll's brain, and didn't give it back.


  8. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> Rjack writes:
    >> >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.

    >>
    >> > "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    >> > software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."

    >>
    >> > Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
    >> > compiler.

    >>
    >> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
    >> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.

    >
    > OK, I'm missing something here.


    You certainly are, Ghost.

    Rjack is a troll. Nothing more.

    If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
    lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.

    --
    Entreprenuer, n.:
    A high-rolling risk taker who would rather
    be a spectacular failure than a dismal success.

  9. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On 2008-09-26, Rjack wrote:
    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> OK, I'm missing something here.
    >>> [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary
    >>> precisely *why* is this the case?

    >>
    >> It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you
    >> can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler
    >> you use and that's enough.

    >
    > You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.


    You don't own the software. You don't get to set terms for
    distribution. The "owner" does. If you don't like this, you are
    always free to anything that you didn't write yourself from the
    "product" you are intent on distributing/publishing.

    [deletia]

    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >>> Rjack writes:
    >>>>>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>>> "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    >>>> software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."
    >>>> Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
    >>>> compiler.
    >>> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
    >>> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.

    >> OK, I'm missing something here.

    >
    > You certainly are, Ghost.
    >
    > Rjack is a troll. Nothing more.
    >
    > If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
    > lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.
    >

    Looks like Bell Micro did just that!

    Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning?
    Keep him off the kitchen table.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  11. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack writes:

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >>>> Rjack writes:
    >>>>>>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>>>> "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    >>>>> software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."
    >>>>> Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
    >>>>> compiler.
    >>>> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
    >>>> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.
    >>> OK, I'm missing something here.

    >>
    >> You certainly are, Ghost.
    >>
    >> Rjack is a troll. Nothing more.
    >>
    >> If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
    >> lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.
    >>

    > Looks like Bell Micro did just that!
    >
    > Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning?
    > Keep him off the kitchen table.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Rjack


    Chris is the group "fluffer". He "me too"s to any one in need that he
    sees as an "advocate". Often from the kneeling position.

    He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and
    withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6
    months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move:

    You will notice Roy's arm at the top:

    http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dol...ucts%20011.jpg

    *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-;

    --
    "True. Due to a lack of competition, there essentially have been no
    improvements to Microsoft's operating system and office software. It
    just works."
    -- High Plains Thumper in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  12. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> it's none of your damn business

    >
    > I'm making it my business. You don't like it, don't use my code.


    It's not worth using.




  13. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Rjack belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning?
    > Keep him off the kitchen table.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Rjack


    Idiot. Buh-bye, sucker.

    --
    Close cover before striking.

  14. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:43:33 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Rjack writes:
    >
    >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >>>>> Rjack writes:
    >>>>>>>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>>>>> "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    >>>>>> software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."
    >>>>>> Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
    >>>>>> compiler.
    >>>>> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
    >>>>> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.
    >>>> OK, I'm missing something here.
    >>>
    >>> You certainly are, Ghost.
    >>>
    >>> Rjack is a troll. Nothing more.
    >>>
    >>> If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
    >>> lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.
    >>>

    >> Looks like Bell Micro did just that!
    >>
    >> Whatsa' matta' Chris? The cat pee in your Cheerios this morning?
    >> Keep him off the kitchen table.
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >> Rjack

    >
    > Chris is the group "fluffer". He "me too"s to any one in need that he
    > sees as an "advocate". Often from the kneeling position.
    >
    > He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and
    > withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6
    > months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move:
    >
    > You will notice Roy's arm at the top:
    >
    > http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dol...ucts%20011.jpg
    >
    > *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-;


    Hysterical!

    Pay no attention to that hand behind the curtain!!!

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  15. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    > Rjack wrote:
    >> My third party compiler is none of their damn business.

    >
    > The GPL attempts to insure that users of a program can
    > run, read, change, and share it. In order for a user to
    > be able to make changes and run the resulting program,
    > he must be given the source and told how to build it
    > from source. (It could have required that the compiler
    > be made available as well, but I expect the FSF felt
    > that there were too many systems where non-free compilers
    > must be used for this to be tenable.)


    It is an independent work. You get into inappropriate conditions very
    fast that road, since the compiler has dependencies of its own.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  16. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    chrisv writes:

    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    >>Rjack wrote:
    >>> I know . . . the GPL grabs the wife , the kids, the family dog and
    >>> your SUV too. He. He.

    >>
    >>No. That would be copyright misuse.

    >
    > Someone grabbed the troll's brain, and didn't give it back.


    Not everybody keeps track of small change.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  17. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    >> Chris is the group "fluffer". He "me too"s to any one in need that he
    >> sees as an "advocate". Often from the kneeling position.
    >>
    >> He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and
    >> withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6
    >> months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move:
    >>
    >> You will notice Roy's arm at the top:
    >>
    >> http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dol...ucts%20011.jpg
    >>
    >> *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-;

    >
    > Hysterical!


    Oh! That's not a hand. That's Marti. Can't you see Liarmutt's eyes are
    crossed?

    >
    > Pay no attention to that hand behind the curtain!!!


    --
    "What's wrong, (p)Rick? Were you defending the innocence of Hans "The
    Linux Butcher" Reiser, and now that he's about to give up the body
    you're embarrassed at being an idiot?"
    -- DFS in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  18. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:45:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >>> Chris is the group "fluffer". He "me too"s to any one in need that he
    >>> sees as an "advocate". Often from the kneeling position.
    >>>
    >>> He used to have a brain of his own but I think it suffocated and
    >>> withered when he spent too long with his head up Roy's arse about 6
    >>> months ago. Now you can actually see the strings which make him move:
    >>>
    >>> You will notice Roy's arm at the top:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dollydames.com/images/Dol...ucts%20011.jpg
    >>>
    >>> *LOL*, Sorry Liarmutt, but you must admit thats funny :-;

    >>
    >> Hysterical!

    >
    > Oh! That's not a hand. That's Marti. Can't you see Liarmutt's eyes are
    > crossed?
    >
    >>
    >> Pay no attention to that hand behind the curtain!!!


    Marti!!!

    I should have known!!!!


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  19. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Sep 26, 6:03 am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > >> Rjack writes:
    > >> >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.

    >
    > >> > "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    > >> > software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers."

    >
    > >> > Cut the crap Hymen! The brave GNU World wants to control your
    > >> > compiler.

    >
    > >> "it" obviously means the proprietary, third-party compiler. Your
    > >> reading comprehension appears a bit sub-standard.

    >
    > > OK, I'm missing something here.

    >
    > You certainly are, Ghost.
    >
    > Rjack is a troll. Nothing more.


    A troll espousing a concern, yes. Of course, two can play at that
    game,
    if one wants to dig, which I'm not all that willing to do at this
    point
    beyond mentioning that Microsoft has swallowed a fair bit of BSD
    code (e.g., the Win95 TCP/IP protocol stack -- though in all fairness,
    they did give proper credit.

    I think we can agree that the *compiler* cannot be shipped, though.
    There are some quibbles about the run-time environment, depending
    on the precise EULA thereon; ideally, if non-FOSS, it would be shipped
    under a license barring reverse engineering and modification but
    otherwise
    freely copyable, given proper crediting.

    Also, if one is trying to discredit the license, I for one would
    hope for an alternative such as the BSD license that would
    be usable in its stead (the BSD does not quite qualify, unfortunately,
    mostly because such code and has dropped into a nice deep hole,
    never to be seen by mortal man again).

    >
    > If any company has concerns about the GPL, they will run it by their
    > lawyers, not some Usenet wack job with a blatant agenda.


    Depending on company size, that may get into independent contractor
    space. Best I can do is mention Sun's interesting struggles with
    ensuring they do not lose control of Java's source code, with their
    JCP license; the results do not look very satisfactory from a
    redistribution standpoint although one can vet the code in the
    privacy of his bedroom/study/den/basement readily enough, if
    he should feel the need.

    AIUI, Microsoft has a process for individuals to vet their code
    as well, but they also have to sign a non-disclosure agreement,
    and contribute satisfactory remuneration. I seem to recall that
    AT&T had a similar policy with regard to old Unix code; for
    about $20K one could get the kit, but couldn't redistribute it.

    >
    > --
    > Entreprenuer, n.:
    > A high-rolling risk taker who would rather
    > be a spectacular failure than a dismal success.


  20. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    > > You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.

    >
    > Do so!


    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html



    Section 1, Paragraph 3-5:

    The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other
    than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
    packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
    Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
    Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
    implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
    “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component
    (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
    (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
    produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
    the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
    work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
    control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
    System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
    programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
    which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
    includes interface definition files associated with source files for
    the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
    linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
    such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
    subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can
    regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.

    Section 6, paragraph 3:

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
    from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
    included in conveying the object code work.



    Boiled down, it appears that an arbitrary developer:

    [a] needs to be able to provide source code for his modifications, and
    source code or a link to source code for a FOSS product, as one might
    expect for the GPL, upon request.
    [b] does NOT need to provide any information/media/software regarding
    his compilation environment beyond that
    needed for a runnable distribution of any derived/compiled product,
    though it may need to identify
    the proper environment (e.g., icc on an x86).

    See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....compatibleLibs
    and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs .

    As an aside, I would hope that the building of the FOSS code would be
    possible using GNU products such as GCC, and certainly if the product
    does not build, one can attempt modification and rerelease back
    upstream.

    Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I affiliated with GNU.

    [snipped]

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast