On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
This means that you couldn't use *GCC* if you
did something the FSF found objectionable, closing an easy
work-around.
This doesn't work, because it breaks out of the basic framework of
copyright law. Nobody signs anything or accepts any terms in order
to
use gcc. The FSF wants to stop people from distributing proprietary
binary plugins to gcc. The copyright on gcc does not apply to those
plugins.
Also, even if you could develop a license similar to the GPL but
with an
additional restriction to this end, this would not be the GPL anymore,
because GPLv3 limits the "non-permissive additional terms" to the ones
listed in Section 7:
The FSF could certainly define a new "GPL4" or "GPL3.1" or whatever,
that contained any wording they want. However, this whole discussion
is off topic for this list, I'm sorry I've propagated it this far!
-Chris
