Re: [DotGNU]TODOs until this weekend

[James Michael DuPont]

--- Stephen Compall <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello mdupont,
> 
> James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > --- Leon Brocard <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> >>James Michael DuPont sent the following bits through the ether:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Please send me some links about the license change.
> 
> All I can see is the thread you've replied to :)

That was ok for a start.
> 
> > 1. Correct me if I am wrong, An MIT/(BSD -advertizing) licensed
> code
> > can be distributed as part of GPL application, so it should be
> possible
> > to create a GPL version of parrot, or make GPL specific add ons.
> Right?
> 
> You can also distribute MIT code under the MIT license linked with
> GPL 
> software, as the MIT license is GPL-compatible. 

Sure. But if you are worried about dotgnu becoming "ungnued", then just
patch the parrot and make a gpled parrot and only link to that...


> Which is why I don't 
> understand why the Parrot license stopped parrotcode from getting a 
> Prolog front-end, as previously reported, *unless* the provider in 
> question wanted to release a non-free version of Parrot, and was
> using 
> this front-end as a push to get it.

The whole argumentation is flawed, there are so many prologs, gpled and
otherwise. The c-generation and the virtual code generation for prolog
is well researched. It might have scared off one implementor people,
but this sounds like more anti-GPL F.U.D to me. 

> >>doesn't apply to the object files it generates (and unlike the way 
> >>gcc's license does apply to its internal representations of things)
> 
> IIRC, this has more to do with the abstract concept of linkage and
> the 
> "sharing internal data structures" way in which GCC front-ends and 
> back-ends do this. When they share these structures, they are more 
> linked together then when doing a simple request/reply with data.

It is far from simple. The front and back ends are connected yes,
but can be separated. 


Any GPL or open source software can be a victim to a man-in-the-middle
attack. Only the courts can decide. The issue with the SWAGkit is that
they proposed first a fileformat, created the tools, and then made the
dumper to dump from the GPL into the non-GPL.

This is very hard to argue against/attack, but I am not a lawyer.

The gcc developers themselves dump these "internal data structure" into
a various formats, some are formats for non-free software, graphviz or
to XML when it pleases them. It is very difficult to argue that a
different tool cannot use the same data that is provided by gcc to
graphviz for something else.

The point is that none of this is handled directly by copyright law,
apon which the GPL is based. The entire area of EULA and click-through
licenses are new and not considered in the GPL.

I will be avoiding this entire issue by using statically linked
applications, but in general, the copyright law + GPL does not give you
any direct safety to people not playing by the "Rules" or thinking
outside of the box.

mike


=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/