GPL under MacOS and NewtonOS

[Chris Gehlker]

On 11/11/01 8:38 AM, "Paul Guyot" <pguyot at kallisys.net> wrote:

>> I had some of your concerns with CodeWarrior and wrote directly to the FSF
>> who told me that they had no problem with my releasing GPL'ed CodeWarrior
>> code that used PowerPlant. Their point was that anyone else with CodeWarrior
>> could compile it. They also allow MFC in GPLed code.
> 
> Wait. Let's say that I release a software based on some code released
> under GPL and then I link it with a framework of mine which I don't
> provide and I say: here is my software released under the GPL, it's
> true that it doesn't compile, but if you buy the framework from me,
> I'll grant you the right to include this code into your own
> applications (including this software of mine), but of course, I
> won't grant you the right to distribute it in source form or in a
> library. It's just what Metrowerks does (I mean by selling the
> framework, not by violating the GPL).


This analogy doesn't fit. Everyone who has Mac CodeWarrior has PowerPlant.

> If the FSF says that this is alright, then I think the OSI should
> reconsider the approval of the GPL as OSD-compliant because it's
> contrary to paragraph 2 of the OSD. Source form definitely includes
> the PowerPlant framework (you basically can't recompile without the
> headers and the object code, so source code without the PowerPlant
> headers isn't really what I would call prefered form to make
> modifications).

I think you are being silly. You found an inconsistency in the wording of
the GPL. It doesn't really deal well in cases where the complier is not
provided with the OS. This includes pretty much every non-Unix OS and some
versions of Unix. I found the same issue. I emailed them and was told that
it was not a problem. Why would you want to make it one?


[Big snip about Metrowerks]

What's the issue here?

> What do you call Apple's 68K gcc compiler? Cygnus's (well, Stan Shebs
> when he was working there) attempt to port gcc to MPW? Not sure that
> if Cygnus violated the GPL, it gives you the right to distribute the
> TEC in source form (which you probably don't have anyway).

It was called gcc. I have no interest in violating the GPL. I am sure that
Cygnus never did. You seem to want to punish the FSF for not enforcing the
GPL to your liking. Why don't you take it up with them?
-- 
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that,
you've got it made. -Groucho Marx

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3