This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, David Edelsohn <edelsohn at gmail dot com>, "Harle, Christophe" <christophe dot harle at amd dot com>, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>, Konrad Trifunovic <konrad dot trifunovic at gmail dot com>, Albert Cohen <Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr>, Roberto Bagnara <bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it>, Doran Wilde <wilde at ee dot byu dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:36:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes
- References: <cb9d34b20808031231l690256a2r918908804397072b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808031947270.15922@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20080804074738.GA17657@ins.uni-bonn.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808041018040.24095@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4aca3dc20808040907w4065d9d1mbd6bbc7a68e0155@mail.gmail.com>
Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
> >> > (But the configure code also
> >> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
> >> only redistribution is.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:> > This is the same principle as config.host giving an error for an attempt
> > to build on UWIN host: in both cases, avoid knowingly building something
> > undistributable.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:07:07PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> If we are doing that, we really shouldn't be.
> One of the very explicit freedoms in the GPL is to be able to build
> versions for internal use that are not publicly distributed.
There are two issues: what the GPL permits, and official GCC policy.
Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out
about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the
ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to
produce an undistributable binary. That doesn't mean that third parties
aren't free to grab the pieces and do it on their own.
As IANAL, I don't know if there is any estoppel consequence if we do
otherwise (for example, an attorney arguing that quietly generating
an undistributable binary means that the binary is distributable after
all, therefore other code that is incompatible in the same way can be
added, etc), but it seems like it might be a possibility.
(Oh, crap, I feel a long amateur lawyer thread coming on. Maybe we
need gcc.misc.discuss).