> Raul Miller wrote: > (Deep attributions snipped in previous messages) > >> >>You can combine gcc and metafont and make a new compiler; you can > >> >>even make a script that combines them, apply some patch to the > >> >>combination, and compiles the result to get to your invention; what > >> >>you can't do is to redistribute the resulting binary nor the > >> >>resulting source. > > > >> >Perhaps there's some part of the GPL that gives this permission which > >> >I've overlooked? If so, please quote this. > > > >> section 2: > >> > >> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion > >> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and > >> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 > >> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > > > > And how would this part of the terms of Section 1 be satisfied in > > this case: > > > > "...provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each > > copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; > > keep intact all the notices that refer to this License.."
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:42:42AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > By your words "this case" above, are you referring to the above-quoted > discussion of combining gcc and metafont? Yes. > Based on your next (quoted below) paragraph, I must assume you are. > > What does keeping copyright notices, warranty disclaimers and references to > this license have to do with combining GCC and metafont? The license on GCC specifically disallows copy rights when the work as a whole includes portions licensed under the metafont license. > Are you suggesting that no possible combination of GCC and metafont can be > labeled with conspicuous and appropriate notices? Yes -- well... not without some exceptional effort (for example: changing the license on metafont might make an appropriate notice possible). > > Alternatively, how are you combining gcc and metafont without making a > > copy of the software which combines gcc and metafont? > > Section 2 grants you a license to create derivative works. While not > explicitly granting permission to copy (just copy, not "copy and > distribute"), without that permission, there can be no derivative works. > Since the entire point of the GPL is to encourage derivative works, any > reading of the GPL which does not allow derivative works is clearly > erroneous. This looks like a quantifier issue. The GPL is designed to encourage the creation of derivative works, but that does not include derivative works where GPL copyright is not granted to everyone. > >> Let's see, eliminating the irrelevant (to our discussion) parts: [[ > >> 2,/caput/ ]] You may modify; you may copy such modifications with all > >> rights we waived in section 1; provided [[ 2, a ]] you mark the files > >> as > > > > Slow down, are you saying section 1 is irrelevant, or that you've > > satisfied its terms? > > The terms of section 1 are satisfied by "conspicuously and appropriately" > keeping certain notices intact. This doesn't answer the question. > >> I said: You can modify gcc, combining it with metafont (as long as you > >> don't eliminate 2,c announcements -- which AFAIR gcc does not have); > > > > If you can put appropriate copyright notices on it, sure. I'm not sure > > how you're going to so this, but I'm sure you'll clear that up for me. > > Change line 1 of gcc/src/main.c to #include "metafont/includes/includeme.h". > > That's a (rather trivial) combination of the two programs. All of the > requirements for section 2 are met (as long as you don't distribute the > resulting combined work). Where's the appropriate copyright notice which you are supposed to prominently include? [Aside: I will agree that some copyright law allows this sort of thing -- basically making it not a copyright issue. But that's not a part of the license.] -- Raul