Re: DragonEgg has been revived

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

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

> Let us review, where Simon Wright and Chris Moore got off-track in
> this thread:

You review if you want to. You're still wrong.

> 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 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. It has nothing to do with target code derived from source under
some other license, eg BSD 3-clause.

>                 GCC is licensed as GPLv3-with-RLEv3.1

No, it's not. GCC is licensed as GPL, its runtimes are licensed with
RLE. I can see it might/would be difficult to explain the consequences
to a small business, but your continued diatribes do nothing to help. 

> Note that there does exist at least one way in the language overtly
> stated in GPLv3 and its Runtime Library Exception v3.1 that the Object
> Code can be forced (dare I say, virally) to be GPLv3-licensed when the
> Corresponding Source Code was permissively licensed open-source or
> even EULA-licensed closed source. We do all see that, don't we?

No.

>> [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!

WTF?

>> What could well cause trouble, and violation of the GCC Runtime
>> Library Exception, would be to use that modified compiler on source
>> of an RTS that was covered by the GCC Runtime Library Exception.
>
> Hey, you found another 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”.  But you have found
> two.  Yea!

Again I say, WTF?