> 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."
That is beside the point. It is not a high level language. Hence,
when you use gcc to compile Java bytecode to Target Code, this is not
an eligible compilation process.
When you use a non-GPL-compatible java frontend to compile Java source to
bytecode and then use GCC to compile this to Target Code, it is not
an eligble compilation process either, because you used a non-GPL-compatible
frontend.
While perhaps some wording needs to be changed, the intent of the
license is stated clearly. Paranoia on this point is not appropriate.
Yes, I would hope that the FSF agrees to change the wording to accomplish
the stated intent.
What kinds of compilation processes the license has to allow in order to
accomplish the stated goal is actual a to a large degree a technical matter,
so it is a bit disappointing that we are having this discussion so late
in the process.
