Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>
> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "add with carry" properly:
>
> Please file a missed-optimization report according to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ . Thanks.
I rather not, going through all that just for one odd
Hi Richard,
2010/4/23, Richard Guenther :
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>
> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "add with carry" properly:
BTW, I can see in gcc src:
(define_insn ""
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 "cc_reg_operand" "=x,?y")
(compare:CC
(plus:SI (gt:SI (matc
On 04/25/2010 06:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
>> If I submit a patch to the GCC project---necessitating an assignment
>> of the copyright to the FSF---then can the people of the FSF decide
>>
Hi,
I recently completed my degree project on LTH on retargeting GCC. See
http://sam.cs.lth.se/ExjobGetFile?id=224 for my report (it will be moved to
http://cs.lth.se/examensarbete/rapporter/rapporter_2010/ soon).
Even though I was aiming for a DSP architecture, I wrote down some things
that
On 04/25/2010 11:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 01:12, Mark Mielke wrote:
The real reason for FSF copyright assignment is control. The FSF wants to
control GCC.
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to
On 04/25/2010 11:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 04:30, Richard Kenner wrote:
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to anyone, whether under GPL or whatever
terms, FSF has to hold the copyright, or it can't sue an
On 04/26/2010 12:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mielke writes:
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
I thought "clean room implementation" implies not
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
>You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
>incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
>copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing nothing
to reduce anyone's ability to sue m
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 25/04/2010 23:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a PR open about this, or any notes anywhere? Being as I use a
>>> non-ELF platform and so gold is not an option, I'd be pleased to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 2010/4/23, Richard Guenther :
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
>> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
>> >> > Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> >
On 04/26/2010 07:20 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
[1] France in my case, probably Europe in general. What you do in
your free time is yours by default, land grab clauses are not
accepted, and it's only when you work at home on things you also
do at work that questions can be asked.
That's true in
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble under
On 26 April 2010 07:06, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> I find it amusing the willingness of various developers to debate the
> veracity of the LLVM policies, but the simulataneous (apparent) unwillingness
> to address GCC's (perceived) problems. Why not spend your time helping
> improve the document
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
>> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>>
>> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "add with carry" properly:
>>
>> Please file a missed-optimization report according to
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ . Thank
Hello again and thank you a lot for the quick replies! I am impressed by
the number of mails I got in such a short time. You helped us loads.
I will also try to document our work every step of the way, maybe it will
help someone else in the future.
Regards,
Radu
Version 4.5 was successfully built on RedHat 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 x86_64
with glibc-2.5-42.el5_4.3
srcdir/config.guess: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.0/configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr
--prefix=/usr --with-mpc=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE") the
software and nothing else. Note that I changed "right" to "permission".
The owner of the so
Version 4.5 was successfully built on RedHat 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 x86_64
with glibc-2.5-42.el5_4.3
srcdir/config.guess: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.0/configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr
--prefix=/usr --with-mpc=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
> On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
> >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> >>
> >> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "add with carry" properly:
> >>
> >> Please file a missed-o
Hi,
I wanted to ask - perhaps you know - what is the status of adding the
UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC, for c++?
It is according to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cpplib.html that such
support is planned.
If you know that there is some patch somewhere floating around, even
a very exper
> Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
> domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
> Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
> configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I said no.
> It's publ
You are free to keep discussing this ad-infinitum. But I really think
that this discussion is not adding anything new. It seems the same old
controversy that is beyond GCC. And it is getting confusing, hard to
follow, and at the end, all your effort will be lost in the archives
and help no one.
Ch
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to ask - perhaps you know - what is the status of adding the
> UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC, for c++?
>
> It is according to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cpplib.html that such
> support is planned.
That page generally appe
On 26 April 2010 14:21, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
>> On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
>> wrote:
>> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
>> >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "a
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>>> What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
>>> useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
>>> simple but not simpler than they become more complex for us.
>>
>> Lots of stuff to read on
In Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
simple but not simpler than th
Hi David,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> There are a large number of users and a small number of developers.
> Why is it so large a burden to ask users to provide the information in
> a standard format in a centralized, trackable location, like GCC
> Bugzilla?
I'm not s
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
>> On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
>> wrote:
>> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
>> >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't op
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:35:49 + (UTC))
> If you wish to experiment with extended identifiers, use
> -fextended-identifiers. This only supports UCNs in identifiers, not
> extended characters represented other than with UCNs. Point 14 out of 15
> on my
David Edelsohn wrote on 2010/04/26 14:54:55:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
> >> On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
> >> wrote:
> >> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
> >> >> Joakim Tje
On 26 April 2010 14:42, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
simple but not simpler than they become
On 26 April 2010 15:22, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
>> feature enhancement. Some of the information can be left blank, but
>> if we do not have information about the system and an example, we may
>> not understand the request or may not be able to reproduce the problem
>> and fix it.
>
> Just go lo
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 15:29:54:
>
> On 26 April 2010 15:22, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> >
> >> feature enhancement. Some of the information can be left blank, but
> >> if we do not have information about the system and an example, we may
> >> not understand the request or may
Hi Richard,
Here is the relevant block from the dump:
:
__vect_var__26_6 = *__vect_p_14_19;
*__vect_p_18_25 = __vect_var__26_6;
# PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_2 } (restr)
__vect_p_22_11 = __vect_p_14_19 + 8;
# PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_1 } (restr)
__vect_p_27_12 = __vect_p_18
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
>
> David Edelsohn wrote on 2010/04/26 14:54:55:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> wrote:
>> > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
>> >> On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> Anyway, I *looked* at the page and it said something about gccbug so I tried
> that, not obvious either but I let me fire off a report an back came
> bug ID 43892
Thanks for filing the report.
Ian
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
>>
>> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>>
>> > Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize "add with carry" properly:
>
> BTW, I can see in gcc src:
> (define_insn ""
> [(set (match_operand:CC 0 "cc_reg_operand" "=x,?y")
> (c
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:35:49 +
> (UTC))
>
> > If you wish to experiment with extended identifiers, use
> > -fextended-identifiers. This only supports UCNs in identifiers, not
> > extended characters represe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Here is the relevant block from the dump:
>
> :
> __vect_var__26_6 = *__vect_p_14_19;
> *__vect_p_18_25 = __vect_var__26_6;
> # PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_2 } (restr)
> __vect_p_22_11 = __vect_p_14_19 + 8;
> # PT = nonlo
Hi Manuel,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>> I guess that's the point, really. 15 minutes for what exactly? All the
>> information is right there in the email Joakim sent. You are trying to
>> make life easier for developers, not users or testers.
>
> I think you misu
> Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some
> public domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part
> of a FSF project. Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU
> project with a GPL license, configure scripts, a cute acronym and
> all that stuff. I sai
>You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
>incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
>copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing
nothing to reduce anyone's ability to sue me, I could
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE")
the software and nothing else.
In case of GCC, you have the explicit permission to
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
That risk always exists; some level of trust has to exist somewhere.
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned (AFAIK) is to change the license.
This is not the only
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:06 + (UTC))
> > I suppose that "raw/real" UTF-8 will not work ;)
> > So how do I express UCN in the code?
>
> By using the \u or \U syntax. For example, pipe your code
> through
>
> perl -pe 'BEGIN { binmode STDIN
On 26 April 2010 16:33, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> I guess the conventional wisdom says that the way to attract new
> developers is to first attract users and testers and then turn them
> into contributors.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have probably hundreds of
thousands of users, people
I added all this to the wiki for future reference:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#utf8_identifiers
Feel free to improve it.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 26 April 2010 17:12, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:06 +
> (UTC))
>
>> > I suppose that "ra
Ross Ridge writes:
> Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
> domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
> Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
> configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I s
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:00:13 -0400
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
>which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
>assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be "legally
>safe"?
>
> I do not know
>Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
>which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
>assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be
>"legally safe"?
>
> I do not know what high-profile projects you are refering t
On Apr 26, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
> is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
> it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
> copyright needs to be assigned
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:50:14 -0400
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> If with kernel you mean Linux, then they require you to agree to an
> type of assignment (though not in paper form), same for git.
No.
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have the right
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
> that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
Actually it's not. The FSF sets the rules, and you either play along
or you don't do the work (not for the FS
Mark Mielke writes:
> [...] What are clean room implementations for if not for avoiding
> copyright violation?
It's a paranoid measure to preclude the appearance of the possibility
of conceivable copyright violation. (It's also sometimes used in the
case of trade secrets.)
> At my company, w
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
>> that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
>
> Actually it's not. The FSF sets the rules, an
Mark Mielke writes:
> What are clean room implementations for if not for avoiding copyright
> violation?
Avoiding contract violations such as promises to keep source code
secret. A strict clean room implementation also makes it clear that
no copyright violation could have occurred.
> At my co
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> w.r.t. "hoarding", I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
> able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
> force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
> assign the copyright to the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> There is so much negativism about a mere nuisance in this thread. It's
> a shame, but I guess it's just more proof that negative discussions
> about GCC are more popular than positive ones.
Seriously, depending on the country it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
i686-w64-mingw32.
i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2 -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -DIN_GCC
- -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
- -Wmissing-prototype
Chris Lattner wrote:
> To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that the FSF or GCC
> project change their policies.
Sure. But others have and that's what this thread is all about.
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> If the copyright holders don't wish to sue, then, one presumes, they
> are not unhappy a
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:59:46PM +0200, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
> i686-w64-mingw32.
>
> i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2 -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -DIN_GCC
> - -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-protot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 26.04.2010 20:03, schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:59:46PM +0200, Rainer Emrich wrote:
>> I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
>> i686-w64-mingw32.
>>
>> i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2 -D__USE
Chris Lattner writes:
> w.r.t. "hoarding", I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
> able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
> force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
> assign the copyright to the FSF. In practice this means that you
>
Jonathan Corbet writes:
> What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
> says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
> copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have thousands of lines
> of code in the kernel, and the copyright remains mine.
T
On 26 April 2010 21:28, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jonathan Corbet writes:
>
>> What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
>> says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
>> copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have thousands of lines
>> o
> And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law where details matt
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Chris Lattner writes:
>
>> w.r.t. "hoarding", I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
>> able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
>> force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
>> ass
Chris Lattner writes:
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Again, just for the record. History shows that this is not entirely
>> useless. People at NeXT wrote the Objective C frontend to GCC. They
>> did not intend to release the source code. The FSF objected. In t
On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Beyond that, the changes to support Objective C 2.0 (and later) have
>> never been merged back in, despite being published and widely
>> available under the GPL. Also, the GNU runtime and the NeXT
>> runtimes are wildly incompatible, and th
On 04/26/2010 10:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner writes:
This is a often repeated example, but you're leaving out the big
part of the story (at least as far as I know). The license *did
not* force the ObjC frontend to be merged back into GCC, there were
other factors at work.
Hi Manuel
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote, On 25/04/10 22:37:
[.]
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ChangeLog
Basically, in your case, do not repeat the filename and mention which
function is affected (if any).
2010-03-13 Jon Grant <0...@jguk.org>
* collect2.h: vflag extern changed to bool so true/f
On 26/04/2010 23:18, Jon wrote:
> Hi Manuel
>
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote, On 25/04/10 22:37:
> [.]
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ChangeLog
>>
>> Basically, in your case, do not repeat the filename and mention which
>> function is affected (if any).
>
> 2010-03-13 Jon Grant <0...@jguk.org>
>
I have a port without div or mod machine instructions. I wrote
divmodsi4 patterns that do the libcall directly, hoping that GCC would
recognize the opportunity to use a single divmodsi4 to compute both
quotient and remainder. Alas, GCC calls divmodsi4 twice with the same
divisor and dividend
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> And even in the US we lost a patch for 4.5 due to a problem with the
> disclaimer. I read this recently on gcc-patches:
>The FSF has a personal copyright assignment for me, but I could not
>get one from my employer at the time, Stanford (according to
>Stanfor
On 04/26/2010 02:00 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
If I own 1% of the code of a program and somebody makes it non-free, I'm
going to be upset, but probably not enough to either sue the person or try
to organize a group do to collectively. But if instead I assigned that
software to a group that decide
On 04/26/2010 03:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner writes
w.r.t. "hoarding", I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to th
> I can say from my 15 years of experience working here that in general
> Stanford *hates* signing legal documents. This is true even of
> procurement contracts. Stanford negotiates legalities very aggressively,
> negotiates vendor contracts very aggressively, and does not generally sign
> things
> Nobody can take your code and make it non-free.
>
> They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does
> your original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy
> from your "free" version of the code, they can continue to use it for
> "free".
Correct. A perh
> I think anybody who truly believes in the *merit* of free software,
> should be approaching companies who do not understand the merit with a
> business plan, not a class action law suit.
Most certainly. And a number of companies have relicensed their software
under the GPL when presented with
On 04/26/2010 11:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE")
the software and nothing els
> However, that isn't only/quite what I meant. My understanding of
> copyright law is that it *only* protects distribution rights of the
> works. For example, as long as I use the software internally within a
> single legal entity (company, house hold, or whatever is acceptable to
> the courts)
On 04/26/2010 07:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
How doe
> From: "Jonas Paulsson"
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:07:04 +0200
> I recently completed my degree project on LTH on retargeting GCC. See
> http://sam.cs.lth.se/ExjobGetFile?id=224 for my report (it will be moved to
> http://cs.lth.se/examensarbete/rapporter/rapporter_2010/ soon).
Interesting o
Mark Mielke writes:
> This presumes that NeXT would not have discovered the value of free
> software and done the right thing eventually anyways. I think anybody
> who truly believes in free software should believe in it for practical
> reasons. It's not just a religion - it's the right way to do
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 02:00:30PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > You can't force some entity to release source code they have
> > copyright to, that's not part of the legal remedies that are
> > available to a judge.
>
> What makes you say that?
The law, *duh*
> Why
Greg McGary writes:
> I have a port without div or mod machine instructions. I wrote
> divmodsi4 patterns that do the libcall directly, hoping that GCC would
> recognize the opportunity to use a single divmodsi4 to compute both
> quotient and remainder. Alas, GCC calls divmodsi4 twice with the
88 matches
Mail list logo
