Now it's my compiler! - Linux

This is a discussion on Now it's my compiler! - Linux ; First the GPL gobbled up your source code, the wife, kids, family pets and your car. Now it gobbles up your compiler too. Alas! If they want my compiler, they'll have to pry it from my cold lifeless hands! To ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Now it's my compiler!

  1. Now it's my compiler!

    First the GPL gobbled up your source code, the wife, kids, family
    pets and your car. Now it gobbles up your compiler too. Alas! If
    they want my compiler, they'll have to pry it from my cold lifeless
    hands!

    To wit:
    A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html

    * * * * * * * * * *
    4.2.3 What About the Compiler?

    The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the
    compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged
    to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources,
    inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered
    mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and
    GPLv3 – has not been typically read to include the compiler itself,
    but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging
    scripts.
    .. . .

    If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We
    consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and
    where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as
    part of the Corresponding Source. This information is essential to
    anyone who wishes to produce a binary. It is not the intent of the
    GPL to require you to distribute third-party software tools to your
    customer (provided the tools themselves are not based on the GPL’d
    software shipped), but we do believe it requires that you give the
    user all the essential non-proprietary facts that you had at your
    disposal to build the software. Therefore, if you choose not to
    distribute the compiler, you should include a readme about where you
    got it, what version it was, and who to contact to acquire it,
    regardless of whether your compiler is FOSS, proprietary, or
    internally developed.
    * * * * * * * * * *

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  2. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    > To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html


    Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.

  3. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    >> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html

    >
    > Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    > says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.



    Quote:

    "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.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack


  4. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack writes:

    > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >> Rjack wrote:
    >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    >>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html

    >>
    >> Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    >> says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.

    >
    >
    > Quote:
    >
    > "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.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  5. Re: Now it's my compiler!

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


    Sigh. The antecedent of "it" is the compiler, not the program.

    The document says that since you most likely cannot ship the
    compiler, you should provide enough information about it so that
    people who get the sources know what they need to get if they
    want to build the program.

  6. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    David Kastrup wrote:
    > Rjack writes:
    >
    >> Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >>> Rjack wrote:
    >>>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>>> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    >>>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html
    >>> Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    >>> says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.

    >>
    >> Quote:
    >>
    >> "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.
    >


    To wit:

    "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We
    consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and
    where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as
    part of the Corresponding Source."

    My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    damn business. The name of the compiler, its version number and
    where it can be acquired is also none of their damn business.
    "[P]art of the "Corresponding Source" my ass.

    You FOSS groupies are obviously a brick shy of a full load.

    None of their damn business.
    None of their damn business.
    None of their damn business.
    None of their damn business.
    None of their damn business.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack



  7. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:

    > David Kastrup wrote:
    >> Rjack writes:
    >>
    >>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >>>> Rjack wrote:
    >>>>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    >>>>> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    >>>>> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html
    >>>> Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    >>>> says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.
    >>>
    >>> Quote:
    >>>
    >>> "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.
    >>

    >
    > To wit:
    >
    > "If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
    > software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We
    > consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and
    > where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as
    > part of the Corresponding Source."
    >
    > My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    > it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    > damn business. The name of the compiler, its version number and
    > where it can be acquired is also none of their damn business.
    > "[P]art of the "Corresponding Source" my ass.
    >
    > You FOSS groupies are obviously a brick shy of a full load.
    >
    > None of their damn business.
    > None of their damn business.
    > None of their damn business.
    > None of their damn business.
    > None of their damn business.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Rjack


    Idiot
    --
    We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.


  8. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > Rjack writes:
    > > Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > >> Rjack wrote:
    > >>> Now it gobbles up your compiler too.
    > >>> To wit: A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance
    > >>>http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resou...nce-guide.html

    >
    > >> Witless is more like it, since the quoted passage explicitly
    > >> says that the GPL does *not* gobble up your compiler.

    >
    > > Quote:

    >
    > > "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.
    >
    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


    OK, I'm missing something here. If, legally (obviously
    technical considerations are a different axis):

    [1] GPL code + GPL compiler = distributable binary

    but

    [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary

    precisely *why* is this the case? Section 4.2.3 is not all
    that clear on this question, and completely *ignores* the
    issue of a support API (which a C++ compiler must have in
    order to handle things such as dynamic_cast<> and
    the ability to call the kernel), though in all fairness the author
    might have simply bundled it in with the "proprietary, third-party
    compiler" concept instead.

    Granted, if said compiler accepts constructs (#pragma is
    the only one coming to mind) the GPL variant
    does not, there's a few issues that may have to be
    worked through; ideally, an astute developer will
    feed back a new version of the distributed source with
    appropriate corrections. Fortunately, in C++'s case,
    one can use #if or #ifdef, and GNU does provide a number
    of tools (autogen, autoconf, etc. etc.) which might assist
    in handling variations of support API/libc() on various
    systems. Most C++ compilers also provide predefined symbols
    for use in #if/#ifdef.

    4.2.3 *is* clear in that one need not distribute the actual
    compiler in order to meet the GPL requirement, although
    ideally (as the second paragraph points out) one could
    easily do so if the compiler is itself FOSS.

  9. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    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.)

    If you do not wish to reveal this, then you may not copy
    and ship a program which incorporates GPLed code, because
    you are violating the terms of the license which allow you
    to do such copying and shipping, and you otherwise have no
    license at all.

  10. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    In article <9KWdnfvjH6NjnkHVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@giganews.com>,
    Rjack wrote:

    >My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    >it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    >damn business.


    Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.

    The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically
    find in commercial software, not about the GPL.

    You just misunderstood the wording, and are trying to cover up
    your mistake with bluster.

    -- Richard
    --
    Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

  11. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Richard Tobin wrote:
    > In article <9KWdnfvjH6NjnkHVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@giganews.com>,
    > Rjack wrote:
    >
    >> My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    >> it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    >> damn business.

    >
    > Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.
    >
    > The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically
    > find in commercial software, not about the GPL.


    Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my
    argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie
    put-down. How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler
    or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's
    none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I
    use. I stand by that assertion.

    > You just misunderstood the wording, and are trying to cover up
    > your mistake with bluster.


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  12. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > Richard Tobin wrote:
    >> In article <9KWdnfvjH6NjnkHVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@giganews.com>,
    >> Rjack wrote:
    >>
    >>> My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    >>> it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    >>> damn business.

    >>
    >> Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.
    >>
    >> The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically
    >> find in commercial software, not about the GPL.

    >
    > Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my
    > argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie
    > put-down.


    The only strawmen here are ones created by you.

    > How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler
    > or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's
    > none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I
    > use. I stand by that assertion.


    Learn to read, thicko.
    All he was saying is, with a GPL compiler you can distribute it.
    With a commercial compiler, you can not distribute it.
    With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
    permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
    the privilage.

    With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
    code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
    you bound by the GPL yourself.

    By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.
    --
    | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
    | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
    | in |good to you so far... |
    | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

  13. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> Richard Tobin wrote:
    >>> In article <9KWdnfvjH6NjnkHVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@giganews.com>,
    >>> Rjack wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint
    >>>> it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their
    >>>> damn business.
    >>> Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program.
    >>>
    >>> The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically
    >>> find in commercial software, not about the GPL.

    >> Don't insert your assumptions about what compiler I have into my
    >> argument so that you can create a strawman for a script-kiddie
    >> put-down.

    >
    > The only strawmen here are ones created by you.
    >
    >> How do you know I don't use the BSD licensed pcc compiler
    >> or an Intel compiler? You don't. The point of my post was that it's
    >> none of your damn business what name brand or version compiler I
    >> use. I stand by that assertion.

    >
    > Learn to read, thicko.
    > All he was saying is, with a GPL compiler you can distribute it.\


    > With a commercial compiler, you can not distribute it.

    Which is complete, 100% bull****. You don't control "commercial
    compilers" so how do know?

    > With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
    > permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
    > the privilage.

    With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission
    from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for
    the privilege.

    > With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
    > code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
    > you bound by the GPL yourself.
    >
    > By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.


    By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie?

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  14. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:22:08 -0500, Rjack wrote:

    > Don't insert your


    Hey, moron, if you don't like the GPL, don't involve yourself with it.

    Problem solved.

    It sounds to me you want it both ways. You want to use free source code,
    licensed under the GPL, and then you want to compile it and call it your
    own. It doesn't work that way. Don't like it? Lump it.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  15. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    RonB wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:22:08 -0500, Rjack wrote:
    >
    >> Don't insert your

    >
    > Hey, moron, if you don't like the GPL, don't involve yourself with it.
    >

    Great post RonB. Your invocation of "hey moron" demolished all my
    arguments. Good work.

    By the way, does your mother know you're still up?

    > Problem solved.


    Yeh. . .

    >
    > It sounds to me you want it both ways. You want to use free source code,
    > licensed under the GPL, and then you want to compile it and call it your
    > own. It doesn't work that way. Don't like it? Lump it.
    >


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  16. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > Which is complete, 100% bull****. You don't control "commercial
    > compilers" so how do know?


    So... You're now claiming that you can re-distribute a commercial compiler?
    Do you KNOW what software piracy is?

    >> With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
    >> permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
    >> the privilage.

    > With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission
    > from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for
    > the privilege.


    So? Reversing what I said doesn't make it any less true.

    >> With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
    >> code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
    >> you bound by the GPL yourself.
    >>
    >> By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.

    >
    > By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie?


    No, look it up.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

  17. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Rjack wrote:
    > Great post RonB. Your invocation of "hey moron" demolished all my
    > arguments. Good work.
    >
    > By the way, does your mother know you're still up?


    You didn't have any arguments to demolish.
    All you had were hot air, bluster and FUDy lies.

    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

  18. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    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. 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.

    > 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.)

  19. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    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.

  20. Re: Now it's my compiler!

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> Which is complete, 100% bull****. You don't control "commercial
    >> compilers" so how do know?

    >
    > So... You're now claiming that you can re-distribute a commercial compiler?
    > Do you KNOW what software piracy is?


    Do you know what a contract to distribute is?
    Do you what the first sale doctrine is?
    It's *none* of your business what other people compile GPL
    source code with.

    >
    >>> With SOME commercial compilers you can't even sell your own code without
    >>> permission from the compiler's owner. And then they expect you to pay for
    >>> the privilage.

    >> With SOME compilers you can sell your own code without permission
    >> from the compiler's owner. And then they don't expect you to pay for
    >> the privilege.

    >
    > So? Reversing what I said doesn't make it any less true.
    >
    >>> With the GPL based compiler, you can do what the hell you like with your own
    >>> code with no restrictions. Only if you include other people's GPL code are
    >>> you bound by the GPL yourself.
    >>>
    >>> By eck, the quality of trolls these days is shocking.

    >> By eck? Is that shorthand script-kiddie?

    >
    > No, look it up.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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