Downloading tricore-gcc-3.3.2?

[Dave Korn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luca Saiu 
> Sent: 16 April 2004 16:34
> To: Dave Korn

>    Hi Dave.

  Hi Luca!

>    Excuse me, I'm not a lawyer, too, but I'm pretty sure there's a 
> fundamental mistake in your interpretation of the GPL here. It's the 
> line I have underlined with carets.
> 
> Dave Korn wrote:
>    [about the authors of a GCC backend which is not in the FSF tree]
> > However, I don't think they're obliged to make
> > the source available to the public at large, only to people 
> who have a
> > binary version, which essentially means they only have to 
> give out the
> > source to their customers. 
>    This is correct.

  Glad you agree :)

> > Unless you can persuade one of their customers
> > to pass on a binary copy of the compiler to you
>  > (and assuming it would be legitimate for the customer to do so),
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  > or you already have purchased one from them, they're not obliged
>  > to give you the source.
>    Ok, they're not obliged; but here comes the essential 
> point: you must 
> persuade a customer to give you a copy, but for the customer it's 
> *automatically* legitimate to do so (it's essential in the 
> spirit of the 
> GPL). 

  Well, it's not really fair to describe it as a fundamental mistake, since
the wording I wrote is still correct and literally true: it just happens to
be the case that it indeed IS legitimate and always would be under all
circumstances.  I was simply being cautious to explicitly state an
assumption I was making which I didn't have time to actually verify.

>There can be no non-disclosure agreements since they would be 
> incompatible with the GPL, which explicitly permits and encourages 
> redistribution. 

  The thing is, I know that customers have the right to redistribute any
sources they receive under GPL; I wasn't sure whether that necessarily
implies that they have the right to redistribute any binaries they've
received from a supplier, or whether it might be a technical necessity for
the customer to rebuild a binary from the source they've received and
distribute *that* instead.  Rather than find out, I made explicit the
condition that would be necessary.  Call me lazy if you like!

> Note also that the customer is also bound by 
> the GPL, so 
> he/she must also give you the sources, or promise to make 
> them available 
> to you on your request, under very reasonable conditions (see 
> Section 3).

  Yep, as indeed I was pointing out by referring to the "What does this
"written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in
the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?" FAQ
entry, which makes that point very clear.

>    The people of licensing@gnu.org (Cc:'d) can correct what 
> I'm saying if I'm wrong.

  Hello people of licensing!

>    Sorry, but I don't think I've been pedantic; requiring people to 
> respect the GPL is an important matter.

  Absolutely; your clarification is welcome, under Buck's law! :)


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....