Re: Converting the gcc backend to a library?

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at free-expression dot org>]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

> It's not a question of legalities, but a question of what we will and
> will not install into the official GCC sources.  These kinds of changes
> can potentially undermine the goals of the FSF & the GPL and are thus 
> considered unacceptable for inclusion into the official GCC sources.
> 
   Actually, it sounds like RMS has forbidden these changes precisely
because of the legalities.  I'm just trying to point out 2 things:

(1) if simply changing the form of the interface to include intermediate
text files makes it possible to add proprietary optimizers/back ends/front
ends/whatever, then the refusal to put these changes into the main GCC
distribution is futile in preventing that except perhaps in marginal
cases.  If nothing else, modifying the official distribution in this way
does not mean the FSF or GCC steering committee thinks making proprietary
add-ons is legal (that is, non-derived).
(2) It makes it harder for legitimate free software developers to include
gcc as a library, for example, a compiler integrated into GUILE so code
could be compiled on the fly.

   In other words, I think RMS and the steering committee should think
hard before not allowing these changes to be integrated into the official
sources.  Eventually, I'll need GCC as a library for a project I'm working
on, and if it's not in the official sources, I'll have little compunction
against forking my own library version because it would still be far
easier to maintain that than developing my own multiplatform optimizing
compiler, and the project is under GPL anyhow.  I'd just as soon know that
the FSF and steering committee still prosecute anyone making non-GPL'ed
derivative works (including ones that go through intermediate files - like
I said, it's substantive, not technical, facts that will determine
whether a work is derivative or not).

Lynn