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: Progress on GCC plugins ?

From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, Emmanuel Fleury <fleury at labri dot fr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:56:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
References: <47317545.2070708@labri.fr> <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com> <m37ikuroo2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4731F5B6.7090404@adacore.com>

* Robert Dewar:

> Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> First, aren't we already in this situation?  There are at least 2
>> compilers out there that re-use parts of GCC by serializing trees and
>> then reading them into a different back end.
>
> It's not obvious to me that this is consistent with the GPL ..

It requires a fairly expansionist view of copyright to make it
inconsistent.  The FSF has made similar claims in the past (for
instance, that all Emacs Lisp code must be GPLed), but I'm not convinced
that arguing for more Draconian copyright laws helps the free software
cause.  Copyleft requires compromises in this area, of course, but some
deals should be off limits.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Robert Dewar

References:
- Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Emmanuel Fleury
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Robert Dewar

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