From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer04.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.am4.POSTED!not-for-mail Subject: Re: DragonEgg has been revived Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <5c2523c1-9ea5-453c-b80e-9cb0dcd16de0@googlegroups.com> <293cf892-1320-49e6-a25f-a36ea098cd34@googlegroups.com> <294fa0cd-ec72-4f0f-8065-0a3d5e1087fa@googlegroups.com> From: Chris M Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 21:59:41 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 22:59:41 +0100 X-Received-Bytes: 6653 X-Received-Body-CRC: 2196326480 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52653 Date: 2018-05-24T22:59:41+01:00 List-Id: On 24/05/2018 20:26, Dan'l Miller wrote: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:19:06 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: >> "Dan'l Miller" writes: >>> And the logical and reading-comprehension (and lack thereof) >>> contortions contained in later replies along the branches of this >>> thread seem to clearly and undeniably demonstrate what Shark8 aptly >>> called “all the morass of licensing”. Just read all the later replies >>> along the branches of this thread to see that different readers of & >>> commentators on the exact same license text in GPLv3 and/or its >>> Runtime Library Exception v3.1 reach drastically different conclusions >>> [mainly by cherry-picking different quotations from the license text >>> and then ignoring/eliding other passages of the license text]. >> >> Now we're getting insulting. I think condescending is more accurate. He used the phrase "Dear boy" on me earlier. For the record Dan'l, I'm 51 and a half. > I keep saying that this is a reading-comprehension problem and logical-deduction problem overtly crafted into (and throughout) the language of the GPLv3 and RLEv3. I will request reading-comprehension & logical deduction again below (my own included, help me out: quote chapter & verse from statutory law or from treaties or from GPLv3 or from RLEv3.1 such that the step-by-step detailed walk-through below gets dismantled; I will read those seminal references). I saw an interesting quote on lwn today: "I don't see myself ever winning an argument with a robot who knows better, and is implemented in proprietary software that I cannot adjust. (Pete Zaitcev)" Made me wonder... >>> I later thought of a third category in answer to my own question that >>> depends on how much surgery can be deeply & intimately performed on >>> Target Code before evoking the “notwithstanding” clause in the >>> RLEv3.1. At what point of wholesale re-writing of a percentage of the >>> Target Code become an act of re-compiling, taking the Target Code >>> written by GCC as mere IR to the re-compiler? >> >> This is relevant to target code derived from source subject to the >> RLE. > > Specifically where in the set {GPLv3, RLEv3.1, copyright law's body of statutes in USCode, copyright treaties to which the USA is a signatory} does it overtly clearly say anything even remotely in the ballpark of that sentence above? I want to read it with my own eyes. I want reading comprehension. (And hearsay commentary on some forum from 2009 where people speculate and parrot what other people say doesn't count; I want original sources and seminal references, such as quotations from members of that set above.) I mean who uses "overtly clearly"? >> It has nothing to do with target code derived from source under >> some other license, eg BSD 3-clause. > > Same request again for this sentence above. Imagine for a moment that you're Einstein. Let's do a thought experiment! Say you use McSema on Microsoft Office binaries, fiddle with the source code generated to improve it and then sell the resulting llvm compiled office suite over the internet. Do you think Microsoft will sue you or not? > Btw, these 2 sentences are where I strongly believe that you are again factually incorrect. > > Let's walk step by step, but for brevity of writing here, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my tea. let all readers pause at each capitalized contractual-term below to go read their definition and cascading-ramification usage in GPLv3 or RLEv3.1, so that reading comprehension is emphasized. Note that there exist 2 readings of the GPLv3 and its RLEv3.1: once for GCC [henceforce G- prefix on the contractual-terms] and once for my app [henceforce M- prefix on contractual-terms] so that we can clearly see the G-to-M viral communicability of the licensing virus. Just to be clear M-Contractual-Term is shorthand for Contractual Term as defined in either GPLv3 or RLEv3.1 when those 2 documents are read with my app in mind (as reading comprehension) when linking with FSF GCC's runtime. Just to be clear G-Contractual-Term is shorthand for Contractual Term as defined in either GPLv3 or RLEv3.1 when those 2 documents are read with FSF GCC itself in mind (as reading comprehension). > > 1) The G-Source-Code term in GPLv3 initially refers to the source code of FSF GCC as itself licensed under GPLv3. > > 2) But then when my app's source code causes (even indirectly) the invocation of even a single subroutine in GCC's runtime (which is licensed via the RTEv3.1), then my app is linked with GCC's runtime library G-Object-Code). Let's assume a best-case with-the-runtime-exception scenario. > 3) #2's linkage causes my app's object code to be (dare I say, virally) transformed for the time being into M-Object-Code as the contractual-term defined in GPLv3. There's no transformation. It's your code, under your license. From the RLE: "When you use GCC to compile a program, GCC may combine portions of certain GCC header files and runtime libraries with the compiled program. The purpose of this Exception is to allow compilation of non-GPL (including proprietary) programs to use, in this way, the header files and runtime libraries covered by this Exception." > 4) #3 causes my app's source code to be (dare I say, virally) transformed for the time being into M-Source-Code as the contractual term defined in GPLv3. No. Night-shift out. -- sig pending (since 1995)