Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Hyman Rosen belched out
  this bit o' wisdom:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
>
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.
>
> <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html>
>      If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
>      during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
>      advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
>      GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
>      you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
>      propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
>      develop your own GPL-incompatible software.
>
> I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!

I like Tim's argument (and its style) better than Cherenkhov's.
The latter is mostly a hand-waving joker.

It seems the FSF is taking an odd position here.  And it doesn't seem to
matter anyway.  They allow you to write proprietary software using GCC.
So what's the difference if you make it proprietary by converting GCC into a
proprietary format generator with a plugin?

And how many suckers would bite on that, anyway?

-- 
What we wish, that we readily believe.
                -- Demosthenes