On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Clarifying is not the same as exemplifying. Exemplifying means to provide
>>*examples*.
> So? At least to me an example clarifies a lot in most cases. Without the
> example that
> a compiler is a component of an operating system I would never have thought
> of that.
>
>>> So as far as GPLv2 is concerned compiler is a major component of the system.
>
>>No. Certainly not *any* compiler, is it? What about Salford Fortran?
>>So why MSVC++?
> In the context of GPLv2 license and software we of course need to read
> the compiler as something that is used to build the software that is
> the subject of the license, why would we/GPL talk about any compiler?
> I hope I did not talk about any compiler, that was not my intention. I was
> just saying that this GPLv2 clearly states that a compiler can be a major
> component of a system.
>
Yes, it can - for instance the unix and cc. But I don't think this
applies to MSVC++ and Windows.
>
>>> And indeed without a compiler (or some such) it is not feasible to have a
>>> system.
>>
>>Oh, since when? I think there were dozens of systems without compilers.
> Again this comes to defining words ("no I did not have sexual relation ship
> with that woman" as Bill said). But I was just reflecting that to build
> any serious computer system you need some language and compiler
> or interpreter and in that sense it is part of the system. But that is
> not relevant, again IMO, to the discussion.
>
>
>
>>> Yes, M$ sells and distributes it separately but to me this
>>> (what and how Microsoft distributes things) does not define what a system
>>> is. Which of course begs the question who defines what a system is ;-)
>>Ultimately, a court does, that's clear. But its decision will be
>>driven mainly by common sense and experts' opinions.
> No disagreement there I hope.
>
>
>
>>> I'm not sure about the implications of the plural, if any. However I do not
>>> see what other component 'that' could refer to than those previously
>>> mentioned in the paragraph? It says something ('anything') is usually
>>> (normally) distributed with components and this something is given exemption
>>> from the source code distribution requirement if the component it usually is
>>> distributed with is not distributed.
>
>>So, if you distribute MSVC++ runtime library, do you or do you not
>>distribute MSVC++?
> In my POV MSVC is a C compiler and its goal is to transform C source code
> into executable code. The library is not part of MSVC, it does not actually
> need
> the library to function (to compile code).
If you consider the library not part of MSVC++, then it must be a
separate "component", therefore explicitly disallowed to be
distributed along ("...unless that component itself accompanies the
executable").
>
>
>>And precisely how many portions of MSVC++ you need to include to start
>>distributing MSVC++?
> Not sure where you are heading with this argument? You are not
> distributing MSVC until you distribute it as a whole, what you are
> distributing
> if you distribute parts, is , well, parts. But so?
I meant to say that I don't think you can cheat the GPL around by mere
breaking the "component" into parts (and possibly omitting some).
>
> To me it is clear that the standard libraries are just and implementation
> detail of how most C-compilers implement , they could be implemented without
> them
> if the writers of compilers would want to do that.
>
> And, as should be plain to everyone, my view is that the whole purpose of
> this paragraph in GPLv2 was to allow at least some kind of standard libraries
> to be distributed without source code in binary form.
>
And in my view, the intent was to allow linking to them, not
distributing them along (hence the last sentence).
>>> The wording could have been better but still I do not see any real ambiquity
>>> there.
>>>
>
>>I do - see above.
> I see.
>
>>> Indeed it depends on that. But I offer to you that we cannot regard
>>> MSVC++ runtime library as component because the license does not offer
>>> anything to suggest this interpretation.
>
>>That's not enough of a reason. The license also does not suggest the opposite.
> Yes, but we should, I think, try to find support for reasoning
> from the license, it is difficult to reason from something that
> it does not suggest, don't you think?
>
Well, GPLv2 does not define what "component" is in any way, so the
implication "we cannot regard... because the license does not say it"
is wrong.
>>> On the other hand it says
>>> (clearly or less clearly, depending on my/your point of view)
>>> that a compiler is a component
>
>>depending on your interpretation of the parenthesis, it says that a
>>compiler is/may be a component *of the operating system*. You can't
>>just skip the rest of the sentence - it's there.
>
> Sorry, you seem to be reading also my words differently from what I meant.
> My fault, I'm sure, not being a native speaker. I don't think I disagreed
> that a compiler is/may be a component of the operating system. Certainly
> was not my intention.
>
> But even so what would it matter? According
> to the terms there is something that is normally distributed together with
> a component of an operating system, that something being exempt
> from the source code distribution requirement.
>
Yes, but I don't think MSVC++ is a component of an operating system.
Back to the start.
>>It's just GPL3 that
>>defines "Major Component" as a concept. Here, it's a component (with
>>small c) of something and that something is clearly stated to be an
>>operating system. Only components of operating systems qualify.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with that.
>
> I'm saying that GPL license takes the view that the compiler that is used to
> build
> the program being licensed is a component of the operating system under which
> the program is to be executed.
And I disagree. It doesn't say that.
> And I'm saying that the standard libraries
> are that something the license refers to when it says 'normally distributed
> with'.
Yes, but only if the compiler was a component.
> Extrapolating from the background of Unix and CC and Richard Stahlman I think
> it is a reasonable conclusion that when the text was written unix was the
> system and
> CC was the he had in mind and this paragraph was put in just to avoid the kind
> of situation we are now discussing. I'm confident he foresee this sort of
> situations.
> In this sort of context the words seem to make sense.
>
--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
