Re: DragonEgg has been revived

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:

>> [sjw] I don't think that it would contravene the GPL to modify GCC so
>> that it emitted an intermediate representation, provided that you
>> convey the source form of such modification with a compiler binary.
>
> Hey, you found one of those “GPL[-based] restrictions on the generated
> code” that Shark8 and Simon Clubley are yearning to eliminate in some
> hypothetical non-GNAT Ada compiler.  Yea!  Good job!  Attaboy!  You
> only needed to find one counter-example to the fallacious theorem
> regarding GCC having absolutely no such “GPL[-based] restrictions on
> the generated code”.  You found one.  Yea!

I think I originally said "WTF" to this. To expand,

I modify GCC so that it emits some intermediate representation which
might, for example, act as input to an LLVM assembler. My modifications
are released under the GPL.

Explain to me exactly how that, on its own, causes any object code
generated via that compiler to fall under the GPL if the source code was
licensed under e.g. a BSD license.

On second thoughts, don't, since you won't be able to using the plain
words of the GPL but will have to fall back on tangled chains of vague
inferences involving unrelated matters.