2009/3/24 Rick R
<rick.richardson@gmail.com>
Correct. My point was only in the case that it would need to statically link to a GPL'd lib (which I'm not sure if such a case exists)
If the gcc license suddenly decided to claim compiled items as derivative works, the IT world as we know it would end.
Any linkage to GPL has different implications than dynamic or static linkage to LGPL code. And I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment on this crap because it's all freaking ridiculous.
People who believe in using and writing software that people are free to use any way they want should just stay the hell away from anything from the FSF.
I like freedom from restrictions, not freedom with restrictions.
Dave
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM, John Meacham
<john@repetae.net> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0400, Rick R wrote:
> The agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of interpreters (just
> those than run external code). It also doesn't say anything about machine
> generated code. The only thing one would have to ensure is that the
> dependencies of JHC are all compiled in, or statically linked. Shared libs
> are disallowed in any app. If it has a runtime dependency on gcc (is there
> such a thing?) Then you would have to statically link it and therefore
> couldn't sell your application. (gotta love GPL)
No problem here, the gcc licence explicity states things compiled with it are not
considered derivative works. And after all, Mac OS X is compiled with
gcc, apple X-Code uses gcc as its compiler and I think gcc may even be
the only objective C compiler out there.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
- A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe