Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but > Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than > to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed directly by some microprocessors, is not a "compiler intermediate representation." I'm not super familiar with Java tools, but I think the rest of your argument hinges on that. > Other cases are rather unclear, too. A hypothetical QPL-licensend > compiler which links against libgcc (Objective Caml apparently > doesn't) cannot produce an Eligible Compilation Process because it is > a work based on GCC (thanks to libgcc), and not everything is > GPL-licensed. Interpreters capable of producing ELF binaries might > also be affected by a similar issue. Your argument here seems to be that linking against libgcc makes a program be covered by the definition of "GCC" in the runtime library license. I don't think that argument is reasonable either on the text or in the real world. It would mean that every program compiled by gcc is itself gcc. > Call me paranoid, but this looks like yet another example where the > Free Software Foundation tries to make things easy for proprietary > software developers, and ends up leaving projects behind which use > non-GPL free software licenses--whose status as free software licenses > is acknowledged by the FSF. While perhaps some wording needs to be changed, the intent of the license is stated clearly. Paranoia on this point is not appropriate. Ian
