[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception" |
Date: |
Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:09:04 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
>> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
>> I'm not at all convinced o this. Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
>> work this way in practice, in that if I write some code for a proprietary
>> OS, and build it with proprietary tools, the tool vendors don't sue me
>> for royalties.
> They grant you a license. There once were compiler vendors who claimed
> that you owed them a royalty for every copy of a program compiled with
> their compilers.
OK, got you! These other compiler vendors have, presumably, long since
ceased to exist.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", (continued)
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/07
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/06
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/06
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/06
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/06
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/07
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", John Hasler, 2009/02/06
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception",
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/05
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Kalle Olavi Niemitalo, 2009/02/06