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!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: DragonEgg has been revived Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 18:19:02 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <5c2523c1-9ea5-453c-b80e-9cb0dcd16de0@googlegroups.com> <293cf892-1320-49e6-a25f-a36ea098cd34@googlegroups.com> <294fa0cd-ec72-4f0f-8065-0a3d5e1087fa@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: h2725194.stratoserver.net; posting-host="e6aa30a2159458efc32569385033c890"; logging-data="29695"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jr3UuU5yJNZU9CdBuFJJbaaFMvADrVWQ=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lv3BgUFuCuCvzTQFn1s21IoXLTo= sha1:0U0xBvVODI9brlrsX58BMKUa6N0= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52643 Date: 2018-05-24T18:19:02+01:00 List-Id: "Dan'l Miller" 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?