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

[James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 at yahoo dot com>]

Here are all my respsonses in one mail :

Dewar :

Also note that I am not a lawyer, just another hacker.
I am not trying to make money of this, and will not
pay for a laywer. If someone wants to do so that is
good.
If the GCC group or FSF  wants to sponser a lawyer,
fine. There is not any money for me to be made here 
and I am working to gain experience and learn, like
many people who would want to use such an interface
that I am building.

Joe Buck :
As far as I can tell, there is absolutly nothing
against my project at all, or really different to the
many just as dangerous things in the compiler now or
the MLC from stanford. 
I am coming to the conclusion that this is really just
a favoritism game here, and elitist club deciding who
and what to support. No real fairness at all. 
You still have shown now difference between embedding
perl or any other script language and this tool from
stanford, just shown that you are preferring it over
some silly project from a nobody.
Show me your aguments, dont just make statements.


Berlin :

You only talked about writing back the files, to the
gcc, who needs to do that? 
We are talking about extracting meta-information out
without any licensing issues. Writing trees can be
done by generating c.

What if they are read out and then passed to a code
generator or even to an IL outputer?

What about my project? 
I changed the output of the tree dumper to output XML,
then generated code out of it? 

I also bootstrapped the compiler, converted the
compilers source code into XML, 
and turned the tree nodes into SQL tables,
are they copyrighted by me or the gcc?

Just reading the files is not against the law.
the files are not copyrighted, are they?

All: 
You have not address the GXL format, the group that
has defined a format to dump the compiler graphs into
so they can say that the GPL does not hold on thier
reverse engineering toosl. Many of them are lurking on
this list!

You have not address the issue with the swagkit yet,
they are not distributing the source code, even if it
is read from the compiler.

The cppx turns the AST tree into the GXL which is an
proposed standard.

What about the GraphVis, you dump the Asts and RTLs
into it, it is not free software at all. That
information can be used for code generation. 

All this shows that there is no consitency in the
arguments here, only politics and lots of talk. 

I would say that I have every right under the GPL to
link in PERL into the core of the GCC (by turning the
gcc into a perl module Shared lib)  and distributing
that, that is equilivalent to embedding some turning
complete language into the gcc. 
That would eliminate the XML format and make the
problem simpler, but does not address the SQL node
repository. Unlike the GDBM file, it is easy to access
and modify.

You still have not answered if that is a problem yet
or showed how violates some laws.

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com