[GCC-XML]licensing

[Dupont, Michael]

Brad, 

I brought up this issue yesterday on the gcc mailling list, and in emails to
stallman and torvalds.

>>The rest of your application is
>>free to be under whatever license you choose.  It can process the output
>>from GCC-XML and do whatever it wants. 
It turns out that the processing of the output of gcc can be considered a
derived work of the gcc.
just because it is going through a network/file or memory does not make is
not derived.

2. I wrote to this topic to Richard Stallman.
Richard Stallman said to me in the question if the
data exchange over the network is not linking and
therefore not covered by the GPL 
"We have a different interpretation of the situation.
Connecting modules through sockets or pipes does not
necessarily mean they are separate programs. In simple
cases they are separate, but not when they exchange
complex data structures."

That would support the idea that all these are derived
works and fall under the GPL.

3. Linus Torvalds said :
>Feel free to consider this email (in its >entirety,
not snipped into pieces) as being >public, so if you
think you want to post it, go >ahead. 
>The GPL notion of "linking" is really nothing but >a
specific technical way of trying to define >"derived
work". 
>From a legal standpoint, technical issues have >some
validity, but in the end the _only_ thing >that
matters is whether it is derived or not. >Linking is
only one (strong) indicator that it is >indeed
derived. There are others. There are
>counter-indicators as well, of course, one of >them
being "previous work" (thus my willingness, >for
example, to have binary modules that were >basically
derived from SCO device drivers that >existed prior to
Linux - one of the original >impetuses for the module
interface). 
>And intent matters. 
>Linus


Hope that you find that interesting.
mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad King [mailto:brad.king at kitware.com]
Sent: Montag, 18. Februar 2002 18:01
To: petewon at netscape.net
Cc: gccxml at public.kitware.com
Subject: Re: [GCC-XML]licensing


> My first question is regarding licensing GCC-XML for use in a
> commercial software product. Are there any issues regarding
> distributing GCC-XML in binary form with commercial, closed-source
> software? The closed-source part would do some processing on the XML,
> show a GUI, allow data entry, etc. I primarily have the Windows
> platform in mind.
GCC-XML is licensed under the GPL simply because it is intended as a patch
for GCC.  This means that any application or library that distributes
binaries built from the code must also be under the GPL.  However, if your
application distributes GCC-XML as its own executable, then only THAT
PARTICULAR executable needs to be GPLed.  The rest of your application is
free to be under whatever license you choose.  It can process the output
from GCC-XML and do whatever it wants.  As long as no header or other code
from GCC or GCC-XML is actually compiled into the application's libraries
or executables, there are no license restrictions.

You probably want to do this:

1.)  Build the GCC-XML exectuable separately from the rest of your
application.  Include this executable in the distribution (don't forget
the cygwin DLL on windows).  Use only your own code to parse the output.

2.)  In your documentation, include a copy of the GPL and give links to
the GCC and GCC-XML homepages.

I think that will be sufficient to satisfy the license.

> Also, I was wondering if you need any help on this project. This isn't
> some sort of bribe, I'm genuinely interested in helping :)
Once I have finished the initial re-write with the new output format, I
will probably be asking the list for help on additional features.  
Thanks.

-Brad

_______________________________________________
gccxml mailing list
gccxml at public.kitware.com
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/gccxml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/gccxml/attachments/20020301/af10a8a0/attachment.html>