On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The Compilation Process transforms code entirely represented in
non-intermediate languages designed for human-written code,
and/or in Java Virtual Machine byte code, into Target Code.
Two months for this??? And what about CLR (Mono, .NET)
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...] Earlier Bradley Kuhn had indicated that this would be covered
in the updated FAQ, but I don't really see it there. I sent him a
separate message asking him to update it.
Joe Buck wrote:
[...] Since the FSF is the copyright owner, even if your reading is
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...] Earlier Bradley Kuhn had indicated that this would be covered
in the updated FAQ, but I don't really see it there. I sent him a
separate message asking him to update it.
Joe Buck wrote:
[...] Since the FSF is the
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:33:59PM -0700, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...] Earlier Bradley Kuhn had indicated that this would be covered
in the updated FAQ, but I don't really see it there. I sent him a
separate message asking him to update it.
Joe Buck wrote:
Frank == Frank Ch Eigler f...@redhat.com writes:
[...] Since the FSF is the copyright owner, even if your reading
is held by someone to be correct, then the FSF's FAQ would count
as an additional permission. [...]
Frank Is anyone else uncomfortable that an important license is to
Frank
The Compilation Process transforms code entirely represented in
non-intermediate languages designed for human-written code,
and/or in Java Virtual Machine byte code, into Target Code.
Two months for this??? And what about CLR (Mono, .NET) bytecode for example???
Paolo
Is that an April fool's joke?
The new license allows Java, but it does not allow linking with
code that has no dependency on the Runtime Library whatsoever
(because it is not considered 'Independent Modules'), and it does not
allow linking with code that has been written in assembly language
(it
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Joern Rennecke joe...@arc.com wrote:
Is that an April fool's joke?
The new license allows Java, but it does not allow linking with
code that has no dependency on the Runtime Library whatsoever
(because it is not considered 'Independent Modules'), and it does
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:30:25PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Joern Rennecke joe...@arc.com wrote:
Is that an April fool's joke?
The new license allows Java, but it does not allow linking with
code that has no dependency on the Runtime Library
Richard Guenther wrote:
What I do find strange is the restriction to explicitly Java VM bytecode
(not CIL or others).
I think I understand that one. Way back in time, when gcj was contributed
by Cygnus, the FSF had to be convinced that Java VM bytecode couldn't be
used to allow, e.g., an
Joern,
The FSF and SFLC believes that your concerns best can be addressed in the FAQ.
David
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Joern Rennecke joe...@arc.com wrote:
Is that an April fool's joke?
The new license allows Java, but it does not allow linking with
code that has no dependency on the
Joern Rennecke joe...@arc.com writes:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:30:25PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Joern Rennecke joe...@arc.com wrote:
Is that an April fool's joke?
The new license allows Java, but it does not allow linking with
code that has no
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:48:17AM -0700, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Say you have module A, B, C and D. A is the main program and uses B, C
and D. B uses the runtime library, and is therefore an independent module.
Thus, you are allowed to link B with the runtime library. An argument
could be
The revised GCC Runtime Library Exception now is published on the FSF website:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
The FSF carefully considered the comments and concerns of the
community about the terminology and hopes that this new text clarifies
the permissions in conjunction
14 matches
Mail list logo
