On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF, but between
> the user and who he got it from. My TiVo contains FSF-copyrighted software
> and I got a license to use it from TiVo, not the FSF.
GPLv2:
6. Each time
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> You look for copyright notices, ask the holders whether they own all
>> of that, ask the distributor who owns any other bits. If they don't
>> know or won't tell, they're up for contributory infringement,
> No, they're not because yo
On 7/16/07, Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't have time right now to look into it, either.
I think we have a handle on this regression.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01462.html for an
approved patch.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
PS See you in Ottawa tomorrow evening
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:54 +0200, Thomas Veith wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> when compiling crafty-20.14 with
>
> CFLAGS='$(CFLAGS) -Wall -pipe -D_REENTRANT -march=i686 -O3 \
>-fprofile-use -fbranch-probabilities -fomit-frame-pointer \
>-ftree-vectorize -ftree-vector
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 02:39:39PM -, Wolfram Gloger wrote:
> > int *p;
> > p = malloc (4);
> > *p = 0;
> > p = realloc (p, 4);
> > *p = 1;
>
> By that reasoning, consider:
>
> int *p;
> p = malloc (4);
> *p = 0;
> free(p);
> p = malloc (4);
> *p = 1;
Except that in the first sequence,
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070716 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070716/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> I have often been confused with the 'GS' prefix we have throughout the
> API. It's confusing as we seem to have two different things (GS and
> GIMPLE).
>
> I would like to propose that we rename all the 'gs' and 'GS' prefixes to
> 'GIMPLE'. That would mean renaming files, data structures and v
> You look for copyright notices, ask the holders whether they own all
> of that, ask the distributor who owns any other bits. If they don't
> know or won't tell, they're up for contributory infringement,
No, they're not because you have no contractual relationship with them.
Back when NYU was d
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>>
>> > the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
>> > to *know* what it is.
>>
>> I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor
The link on gcc.gnu.org for the GCC 4.1 status refers to an email about GCC 4.2
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 08:42 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > I hope your employer follows industry standard practice of caring *a
> > lot* about licensing issues for all the software they use. You're
> > greatly mistaken if you think only compiler hackers look at softw
I have often been confused with the 'GS' prefix we have throughout the
API. It's confusing as we seem to have two different things (GS and
GIMPLE).
I would like to propose that we rename all the 'gs' and 'GS' prefixes to
'GIMPLE'. That would mean renaming files, data structures and variables.
On Jul 16, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is whether corporations will adopt the GPLv3 without
> review by their legal departments, and how long that review will
> take, and what the consequences of this is.
I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that those most
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> Let's revisit the example above. I take a file which, for the purpose of
> this example will be GPLv2. I modify that file to fix some bug. That file
> remains GPLv2 because its a derived work of a GPLv2 file and nobody has
> changed i
On Jul 13, 2007, Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPLv3+ code is however incompatible to GPLv2+ code, so it warrants
> a major version bump.
Not quite.
GPLv2 code is incompatible with GPLv3, and vice-versa, but GPLv2+ is
compatible with GPLv3+ and vice-versa, the result of the combin
Dave Korn wrote:
On 16 July 2007 18:51, Michael Eager wrote:
I'm done with this discussion. It's not going anywhere.
That would have been just a tad more impressive if it wasn't at the end of a
long stretch of self-justification. As it was, it comes across more like
trying to have the l
On Jul 14, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
>>> apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
>>> this entire branch, a
On 16 July 2007 18:51, Michael Eager wrote:
> I'm done with this discussion. It's not going anywhere.
That would have been just a tad more impressive if it wasn't at the end of a
long stretch of self-justification. As it was, it comes across more like
trying to have the last word and then s
> On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>
> > the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
> > to *know* what it is.
>
> I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor wants
> you to believe to be applicable, you can (i) ask the copyr
On Jul 15, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's really not possible to "un-know" the original GPLv3 patch and
> create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The second patch is clearly
> and directly derived from the first.
OTOH, the author could claim to have developed the patch on
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
> to *know* what it is.
I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor wants
you to believe to be applicable, you can (i) ask the copyright holder,
o
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
>> consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
> Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
> software and the other party
> From GPLv2, similar wording in GPLv3, emphasis added by me:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license *from the
> original licensor* to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and c
Richard Kenner wrote:
This is very tedious.
Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message
simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
A license does not require the meeting of minds.
Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just
On Jul 15, 2007, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that
> distributing a GCC with some file headers saying "GPLv2 or later" and
> some saying "GPLv3 or later" is violating the license.
Why would it be? They're evidently compatible, s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > Despite the lack of a relationship with anyone at FSF, many people do
> > download GPL software an use it, in accord with the license. They have
> > a legal right to use the software.
>
> A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF
> Folks, could you please take this insanely long thread out of the list?
>
> It has stopped being on-topic for a long while now.
Actually, it has turned up one question that I think we do need the answer
to. What, precisely does the FSF want done by July 31? There are releases
SVN files, and p
> This is very tedious.
Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message
simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
> A license does not require the meeting of minds.
Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just a
fancy way of saying t
I'm struggling a lot to get a basic frontend up and running. It
segfaults on append_to_statement_list(...) when the function tries to
get the statement list's tail iterator (via STATEMENT_LIST_TAIL(...)).
This is of course after I have called alloc_stmt_list(...).
Can anyone point to _anything_ a
Sandra Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #6 0x0875dc03 in rest_of_handle_combine ()
> at /scratch/sandra/mips-mainline/src/gcc-mainline/gcc/combine.c:1264
The bug is that reg_stat in combine.c does not reallocate when a
splitter creates a new pseudo_reg. I'm working on a patch to con
Mark Mitchell schrieb:
GCC 4.2.1 RC1 is now available from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2.1-RC-20070703
It may be too bold to call this a "release candidate" in that I expect
more changes to 4.2.1 before we release. However, it is certainly still
a good idea to test these packages in
Folks, could you please take this insanely long thread out of the list?
It has stopped being on-topic for a long while now.
Thanks.
Richard Kenner wrote:
A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly speak
On Jul 13, 2007, Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
> where even just one file in a release might be GPLv3, or any other
> situation where the license is not clear, then to me that software is
> unusable. This applies to
Richard Kenner wrote:
You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract. No parties to the
supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.
Yes, that's rig
> A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
> consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly speaking)
under which that
On Jul 13, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upgrade the license of every project implied that this would be
> effective for future releases, not retroactive.
Just to be clear, the FSF can't and won't withdraw the GPLv2, or
revoke any licenses granted through earlier releases. Any
> That is the point. The FSF, at this time, has said that as of August 1
> all patches are GPLv3.
No, they did not. As far as I know, they said all *releases* are GPLv3.
> You want to mix two different things and call them the same.
> The only part which matters is the creative changes.
Wrong.
Richard Kenner wrote:
A license is a form of a contract. Look at nolo.com, a site aimed at
giving legal advice to laypeople. They define "license" as "A contract
giving written permission to use ...".
A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
consideration.
> > You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
> > you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract. No parties to the
> supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.
Yes, that's right, which i
Richard Kenner wrote:
It is source, covered by the copyright assignment. The assignment, if I
recall correctly, says that the FSF will distribute the source under license.
Yes, but doesn't say *which one*: that's the whole point here! All it
gives are very general terms that the license must
> It is source, covered by the copyright assignment. The assignment, if I
> recall correctly, says that the FSF will distribute the source under license.
Yes, but doesn't say *which one*: that's the whole point here! All it
gives are very general terms that the license must follow. That's what
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The discussion started 18 months ago, and you were welcome to
participate all the way back then. Why bring up these issues only
now?
You seem to miss the point:
It isn't whether I have issues with the GPLv3; I don't, for the
most part.
The question is whether corporat
> >> Note that the issue, in practice, isn't what the FSF distributes but what
> >> a third party (RedHat, Apple, AdaCore, etc) distributes.
>
> FSF determines the minimum level of the GPL license, not RedHat.
Yes, sure. However, the issue here is not what the license actually
*is*, but how one
On Jul 13, 2007, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH there are a number of non-FSF entities that
> have committed morally and/or legally to providing
> long-term support for gcc directly and/or OSes that ship
> with a gcc. I really believe these people need guidance
> from the FSF on
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GPL is a license. The GPL is not a contract. There isn't even an
implied
contract.
You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
I am not a lawyer, but there is still
On Jul 13, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> See, I'm not diminishing the importance of licensing issues, I'm just
>> saying it's legally irresponsible to sit back and *not* even watch
>> what'
Richard Kenner wrote:
You are assuming here that the patch ITSELF has some license that's applied
to it irrespective of the file it was derived from and I don't see the
legal basis for such a claim.
Your patch, once accepted by the FSF, becomes their property, and the
FSF, not you, determines th
Dave Korn wrote:
On 16 July 2007 14:01, Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
waive rights under these. Esp
> > You are assuming here that the patch ITSELF has some license that's applied
> > to it irrespective of the file it was derived from and I don't see the
> > legal basis for such a claim.
>
> Your patch, once accepted by the FSF, becomes their property, and the
> FSF, not you, determines the lice
> I have a question, which may be germane to some of this discussion: Who
> is the distributor when I download from the public svn repository on
> sourceware.org? The FSF or RedHat?
I don't think anybody knows. For most purposes, it doesn't matter. If
there were a situation where you felt the n
On 16 Jul 2007 14:39:39 -, Wolfram Gloger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
First, I assume we are talking about C realloc here, not just a
"realloc-like" function which may have other semantics and for which
__attribute_malloc__ may not be appropriate.
> > It looks like gcc assumes a functon m
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, the two patches don't have different copyright or licenses,
given your description. It's really not possible to "un-know" the
original GPLv3 patch and create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The
second patch is clearly and directly derived from the first.
You a
Hi,
First, I assume we are talking about C realloc here, not just a
"realloc-like" function which may have other semantics and for which
__attribute_malloc__ may not be appropriate.
> > It looks like gcc assumes a functon marked with DECL_IS_MALLOC won't
> > return an address which can alias some
> Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
> have the same as well. And it's all directly from the copyright holder.
Except quite often it ISN'T direct from the copyright holder. E.g., a
RedHat or Debian distribution.
> > It's critical to understand that copyright an
On 16 July 2007 14:01, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
>> patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
>> to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
>> waive rights under these. Especially
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
waive rights under these. Especially if a reasonable person would
expe
> Actually, the two patches don't have different copyright or licenses,
> given your description. It's really not possible to "un-know" the
> original GPLv3 patch and create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The
> second patch is clearly and directly derived from the first.
You are assuming here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> The problem isn't convincing somebody it's *different*, but to convince
> them that there's a reason the license is what it supposedly says it is!
Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
have the same as well. And it's all
> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
> patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
> to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
> waive rights under these. Especially if a reasonable person would
> expect copyright st
> > At the very least, the file headers are a clear representation as to
> > what license the file is under, and IMO a reasonable person would expect
> > to be able to rely on such a representation.
>
> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
> patches after Aug 1 are
I'll start this by pointing out that (like Robert), I'm not an attorney.
But both of us have been familiar with GPL and related copyright issues for
well over a decade.
> When you post a patch to the mailing list, or apply it to a branch, you are
> acting as an agent of FSF. You previously assign
Hi Krzysztof,
I hope the COPYING or similar file will contain the licence text
under which the code is distributed?
Actually the plan is to create a new file - COPYING_v3 - which will
contain the GPL version 3 and then change the copyright header in source
files over to say "version 3 (or la
63 matches
Mail list logo
