This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: a fork of gcc is sold for $26k?

From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Arch hvv <arch dot hvv at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:24:43 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: a fork of gcc is sold for $26k?
References: <CAAjC5jKDLeW6d-YGUTz4yQsM3kU1-RqSGkaO0Fg7FTpYze-KgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRHyvWe7YOZ6fp6Jm5vk0u9JjnVDxPaL7imiWEBov7dhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> On 16 June 2012 12:01, Arch hvv wrote:
> > Have anybody inspected it? Is GPL violated in this case or not (e.g.
> > do they provide all patches they've made to gcc)?
> 
> If it's based on llvm-gcc then it only uses GCC as the front-end so
> there may be no reason to patch GCC.

In case they link-edit against GCC frontend (or backend, or just generally 
GPL protected) files and distribute the resulting binary they still must 
provide their own code linking against those under a GPL compatible 
license.  I don't know of they do the former (or use llvm plugins), and if 
so, if they do the latter.  The FSF might want to know, though.

Ciao,
Michael.

References:
- a fork of gcc is sold for $26k?
  - From: Arch hvv
- Re: a fork of gcc is sold for $26k?
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]