> So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and > he does this immediately before listing a number of projects > that set out to create proprietary projects, and then were > forced by their use of GPLed software to license them under > the GPL. > > Which is to keep GPL software free, in this case, it kept GCC free.
Reality check. GCC did not have a C++ frontend previously. So it did not "keep" what constituted GCC "free", but rather added something new to it. The C++ front-end was a patch for GCC, so it kept GCC free. If it didn't, then we would have a non-free fork of GCC. So while it indirectly added something new (you can comply with the GPL by licensing the work under the same terms as the GPL), all it did was keep existing software free. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
