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

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> 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!

Doesn't matter as long as it is no judge rolling with laughter.  Once it
is, there is case law against plugin copyright creep, and nobody will be
more happy about that than the FSF.  Every time the scope of copyright
is weakened in court, this is a win for free software.  When some
far-fetched theoretic scope of copyright law tried by the FSF on behalf
of the GPL is acknowledged, a corner case of free software is kept free
artificially.  When it is defeated, this corner case is kept free
naturally for all software.

As long as the FSF keeps the cases generally relevant and not just for
the GPL, it maintains the ground for free software by winning, and wins
ground by losing.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum