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

[James Michael DuPont]

> Our current policy is that we don't accept patches
> that do
> this, but we can't prevent others from doing it.
Yes you do, the tree-serializer, the tree-dumper are
such patches, the tree dumper is much more more abused
than the introspector.

> 
> However, you frequently propose legal theories that
> I think
> are simply wrongheaded, like your notion that
> because Perl
> is dual-licensed, that linking Perl code to GCC
> would make
> GCC dual-licensed as well, 
That was wrong, and it was a while ago.

>or your notion that you
> can somehow
> close potential holes introduced by XML interfaces
> to GCC
> by licensing the format somehow.
I can license the output and make the service
available only via a EULA and TOU.

> 
> > There is nothing legally stopping anyone from
> creating
> > a non-free back and front end on the gcc, if you
> dont
> > use linkage, but file format.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> My point was that the Stanford project described at
> hands.stanford.edu has nothing to do with your
> introspector
> project and does not involve the same issues.
It has alot to do with it, it provides a programmatic
end user access to the ASTS. 
If I link my perl code and perl code directly the the
gcc there is no difference.

mike


=====
James Michael DuPont

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