Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:
> That's "if", not "only if".  The problem is whether the combined work is
> more than a mere aggregation of its part so that the original
> constituents can no longer be told apart well enough to be licensed
> differently.

Let's speak of the source code to an extension, not the entire
compiler consisting of the original compiler built with the new
extension included. That extension is written from scratch, but
is written to interoperate with the data structures of GCC. The
source therefore contains many names which also appear in the
GCC text, and likely many idiomatic uses of the data structures
which appear similar to uses found in the GCC code.

Such an extension, standing alone in source code, does not require
permission from the GCC rights holders to be copied and distributed.

> > Attempting to use copyright to prevent
> > interoperability is considered by the courts to be a serious breach,
>
> A serious breach of what?

Use of copyright law. They don't allow it.

> There is no clear and consistent case law with regard to linking stuff.
> When in doubt, you will try to make sure that decisions leaning either
> way will not put you too much in harm's way.

Yes there is - video game system manufacturers tried and failed to use
copyright law to require that independent game creators pay them for the
right to create games on their systems.