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

[dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)]

<<I should have been more careful when I wrote "Correct."  Should GCC accept
patches to provide a standard interface that reads and writes compiler
internals in XML format, with documentation, then it would be hard to
argue that all readers and writers of the format would need to use GPL
licensing, because use by external programs would be *intentional*.
>>

The fact that the use by external programs is intentional can be argued to
be irrelevant. See GEAC vs Grace Consulting, where the issue was whether
calling a subprogram is equivalent to copying the text of the subprogram
and therefore is a copyright violation equivalent to such copying.

One issue in this case was an attempt to make the point that this doctrine
would NOT imply that Microsoft owns all the software in the world because
Microsoft intends that its interfaces be used by third party software, whereas
GEAC did not. GEAC made this argument, and the jury ruled against GEAC on all
counts, but of course did not enumerate its reasons, so this particular
aspect of the case is still left unclear. I took the view as the expert for
Grace that the intention behind creation of open interfaces was not relevant,
but again its certainly an arguable point.

So your last statement is wrong, it is not hard to argue either side of
this question :-)