Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>]

>> This means that you couldn't use *GCC* if you
>> did something the FSF found objectionable, closing an easy
>> work-around.
> 
> This doesn't work, because it breaks out of the basic framework of
> copyright law.  Nobody signs anything or accepts any terms in order to
> use gcc.  The FSF wants to stop people from distributing proprietary
> binary plugins to gcc.  The copyright on gcc does not apply to those
> plugins.

Also, even if you could develop a license similar to the GPL but with an
additional restriction to this end, this would not be the GPL anymore,
because GPLv3 limits the "non-permissive additional terms" to the ones
listed in Section 7:

  a) [disclaiming warranty]

  b) [requiring preservation of legal notices]

  c) [requiring that modified versions of such material be marked]

  d) [limiting the use for publicity purposes of names]

  e) [declining to grant rights for use of some trademarks]

  f) [the Apache License's patent indemnification clause]

  All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
  restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
  received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
  governed by this License along with a term that is a further
  restriction, you may remove that term.

Even without considering the feasibility of adding such a bullet, it
would not be a good PR move for the FSF to add a bullet "g" to the above
list for the sake of GCC.  The possibility of modifying the permissive
terms of the runtime libraries (which are distributed with every binary
produced by the compiler) does seem like a good way to control the
*usage* of the compiler as opposed to its distribution.

Paolo