Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles

[Chris Lattner <clattner at apple dot com>]

On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> > > 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:

The FSF could certainly define a new "GPL4" or "GPL3.1" or whatever,  
that contained any wording they want.  However, this whole discussion  
is off topic for this list, I'm sorry I've propagated it this far!

-Chris