From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 13 04:56:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39060106566B for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:56:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from cauchy.math.missouri.edu (cauchy.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085E68FC0A for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:56:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from laptop3.gateway.2wire.net (cauchy.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by cauchy.math.missouri.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0D4tkpt041553; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:55:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Message-ID: <496C1F14.2020207@math.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:56:52 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090109 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Oberman References: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20090113044111.134EC1CC0B@ptavv.es.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eitan Adler , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Michel Talon Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:56:57 -0000 Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 -0500 >> From: Eitan Adler >> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org >> >>> As for Michel's point that the results of the compilation are not >>> covered by GPL - this seems to be stated explicitly in the GPLv3 license. >> Which is my question. Why do we need update the compiler when the >> license shouldn't matter? >> Has anyone asked the FSF about this issue anyway? Does the FSF claim >> that the output of the compiler becomes "free" software? > > Smells like FUD to me. In all of my reading, I have never seen such a > claim. There may be some GPLv3 issues, but I seriously doubt this is > one. I just wanted to clarify (because my post is a bit ambiguous) - I was trying to say that the GPLv3 seems to be explicitly saying that the output of the compilation is NOT covered by GPL: To quote (** added): 2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. **The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.** This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.