Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

Re:Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC by falcolas on Monday January 19, 2015 @12:40PM (#8912916)

While incidentally true and pursuant to his real goal, I don't believe this is his ultimate goal. His goal is, and always has been, to make sure that you as the user of the software built upon his work, are always capable of opening it up and looking under the hood, and making adjustments as you see fit.

Throw a proprietory module on the end which relies on his work but gets around the GPL, and you've lost that right. That's not acceptable to him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC by dalke on Monday January 19, 2015 @01:21PM (#8913140)

I believe you've just restated what I wrote.

Quoting from the Free Software Definition page at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html :

> You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

There is nothing that obligates giving back code. Rather, that obligation is against the four freedoms of the free software. Hence, "if you take code, you must give back code" is not, as jordigh understood, one of rms's intentions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC by falcolas on Monday January 19, 2015 @01:28PM (#8913174)

True! Sorry, I was responding mostly to this phrase:

> If gcc is diminished, then fewer people will be aware of, much less agree with or advance, the ideals of software freedom. The technical advantages of gcc are used as marketing for software freedom.

[ Parent | on HN ]