It's not misconceptions - it's just omitted step
Posted Oct 5, 2008 7:28 UTC (Sun) by khim
In reply to: Common misconception
Parent article: Plugging into GCC
The misunderstanding comes from skipping straight to (2) without
first considering (1).
May be some people (like drag above) have this
misconception, but people actually involved (RMS and FSF) surely don't.
They see nVidia, they see Broadcom and ask "how can we prevent THIS?" and
"should we actually try to prevent THIS?". And yes - this IS about case
where plugins developer does not distribute GCC itself...
Sorry, but you are coming from wrong side. You are cosidring what is
convenient (of course distribution of proprietary plugin with GCC is more
convinient then distribution without GCC) and then think about
copyrights. The makers of proprietary plugins come from different side:
1) We want to distribute our "cool technology" as proprietary plugin to
2) Can we bundle them and distribute GCC and our cool technology
3) No? Well - too bad, we need chapter in documentation about downloading
Think about Microsoft/Novell deal: how proud Microsoft was when their
lawers found the loophole which allowed them to sign a deal which was
supposed to be prevented by GPL! It's security - you should always
think about the "weak part"...
to post comments)