This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

> James, Asking people to show you what law you'd be
> violating or why 
> one thing is legal, and another somewhat similar
> thing is not, is not a 
> gcc topic.  

Well, lets get away from the legal issues and get back
to development issues and interfaces. I wont mention
license and legal if you dont.

>If you want to know how to go about
> interpreting the law, go 
> to law school.
Fair enough.

> What is and what is not legal to do with gcc, is not
> related to 
> development of gcc itself. 
> Period.

So really there is no need discussion about legality
then. I could ask your opinion if this or if you think
this or that is a good idea. 

If it fits into the policy of the compiler group, the
current agenda, the current politics at all?

I guess that there are some times that it is easier to
ask for forgiveness then ask for permission. 

I have been trying to get a understanding of the legal
issues involved with the gcc so that I may help
protect it. That is in your interests as well.

Given that I am not going to be making money off this
endeavour, and want to provide software and services
to free software developers, 
it is only fair and courteous to tell you want I
intend on doing, ask for advice and see if there is
any problems with it. 
I wont be spending money on legal advise, all I want
to  do is make a honest contibution to the gcc and the
free software development community. Maybe I am going
about it all wrong, but it is my intent.

Left up to my own devices, I will try and do my best.

My original question was if the MLC project is not a
problem in the eyes of Joe Buck, then embedding any
language interpreter should also not be a problem,
then  making gcc a perl module is also not a problem.

I guess that I dont have to ask you for permission to
do so, but since there has been requests *NOT* to make
gcc a shared DDL, i find that responsable to ask ahead
of time. 

It would be posssible to statically linking the
interpreter into the core, that will still allow for
any script to be executed.

Then I could again ask if the scripts running inside
of the compiler would have to be GPL? 

Also if there is a problem then from inside the
compiler to write the data into a database?

Those are valid questions on this list?

By the way Daniel,
on the issue of the tree dumping into GDBM files,
it would be very simple to *CHANGE* the format of the
dumped memory into something that is easily parsed,
even use my XML patch on the tree-dumper to xmlize the
data written to the tree and then it would be very
easy to read it out of the PCH files. Otherwise any
memory structure that has a two way mapping from the
tree and back could be used. 

If you developed it outside of the gcc, made GPLEd
tools for writing it, LGPL tools for reading it, and
then introduced it into the compiler, you would have
no way of preventing anyone from using the data of the
tree-serializer for anything.

It is almost impossible to create undocumented file
formats in free software when anyone can change the
code that writes them!


James Michael DuPont

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]