Re: Meta-Level Compilation project / Introspector/ AST access / Licensing question

[Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>]

> It seems that we have some misunderstandings of my
> project and intentions here. 

You still think that I think you're a bad guy.  I don't.
Long-term, GCC is going to have to open up the interfaces.
Our current policy is that we don't accept patches that do
this, but we can't prevent others from doing it.

However, you frequently propose legal theories that I think
are simply wrongheaded, like your notion that because Perl
is dual-licensed, that linking Perl code to GCC would make
GCC dual-licensed as well, or your notion that you can somehow
close potential holes introduced by XML interfaces to GCC
by licensing the format somehow.

> There is nothing legally stopping anyone from creating
> a non-free back and front end on the gcc, if you dont
> use linkage, but file format.

Correct.

My point was that the Stanford project described at
hands.stanford.edu has nothing to do with your introspector
project and does not involve the same issues.