GPL under MacOS and NewtonOS

Paul Guyot pguyot at
Mon Nov 12 11:19:26 UTC 2001

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

Well, I'd admit that, although each version of CW comes with a new 
incompatible version of PowerPlant but the compilers remain 
compatible (if not identical for the 68K one) within versions.

So I guess you agree with these points:
(1) Metrowerks CodeWarrior is a major component of the operating 
system as the GPL defines it (since the GPL gives the example of the 
compiler and the kernel as major components of the operating system).

(2) Therefore, anything that comes with CW in binary form can be 
included in a GPL software (provided that Metrowerks EULA accepts it).

Let me give you an example showing that the interpretation in point 1 
is contrary to section 2 of the OSD.

I wrote a compiler which I ship with a framework (F) as a commercial 
product. The EULA is exactly MW's (you cannot ship the framework 
except in binary form in an application in which you brought 
significant code of your own).
Then I take some GPL software (G), link it with some code of mine (A) 
plus this framework (F) (which binary is 1 MB big, BTW) and release 
the final product under GPL because it includes G, but I only give 
the source for A + G.
You cannot compile the software without the framework or the 
compiler. However, there is another compiler for the same language on 
the market which can compile (with or without little modifications) 
A, G and F.

Is it open source?

What's the difference in the GPL between this solution and developing 
a software linked with PowerPlant and using MetroWerks compilers?
Can I also do the same with Metrowerks PowerPlant and Apple's MrCpp or gcc?

>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 issue is the subject of this thread, isn't it?

>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?

Because they have strictly no additional authority for the 
interpretation than anyone else here. The GPL is a contract between 
authors of the original code and the developers who wish to use 
(modify, redistribute) it.

If you say, heh, the FSF says so, so it's that's way, then you'll be 
surprised if someone comes and say: well, there's a misunderstanding 
here, what I meant in this license is this interpretation, and no 
matter how the FSF would interpret it then, the only reference will 
be the text itself.

>What's the issue here?

Can I include TEC 68K libraries (UnicodeConverterExtrasLib.o, 
UnicodeConverterLib.far.o, UnicodeConverterCoreLib.o) which aren't on 
CW 6 Tools CD, BTW, in a GPL software?
What is a major component of the operating system? Can it be (a) 
downloadable (b) shipped with a compiler (c) shipped with the 
operating system?

>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?

I don't want to punish anyone, I'm discussing issues here, that's all.
And if ever Cygnus violated the GPL with gcc mpw port, it's not my 
problem at all, I'm not bound with them with the GPL agreement. It's 
the authors of gcc who could mind, not me.

Home page:
Newton-powered WebServer:
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list