OpenMP licensing problem: a solution

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
>> In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
>
> I wasn't giving general advice of what we might be able to get away with or 
> what the law might allow for, but rather, a very conservative view that 
> hopefully doesn't fail to be conservative to keep us and them happy.

Sigh.
I believe you missed the point I was making, because i didn't bother to 
actually write it out. :)

The point is that you've stated a possible suggestion based upon an 
assumption of  law that may or may not be true (in this case it isn't, 
at least in the US).
The correct thing in these situations is to *always* bump it to a lawyer 
(in this case, the FSF lawyers), not try to figure out whether a given 
answer may be acceptable, and if you don't get an acceptable answer, bump 
it to a lawyer, for two reasons:

1. What is really an acceptable answer based on the law may not  be the 
same as what you think it is :). (While it may turn out often that what a 
lawyer will accept is a lot more conservative than what you've come up 
with, this isn't always the case).


2. Even if you had the "lawyers acceptable answer", you aren't the one who 
can do anything with it, only the FSF/SC (or someone who officially 
represents GCC) can.