[Introspector-developers] Fwd: The Intended usage of GNU software (was Treecc Ruby support)
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
mdupont
|
From: James M. D. <mdu...@ya...> - 2002-11-06 16:21:52
|
Here is my statement on the usage of the introspector-like patches for the cscc /treecc tool. This basically is going to start a big fight (again) mike --- James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...> wrote: > From James Michael DuPont Wed Nov 6 08:20:26 2002 > Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; > Wed, 06 Nov 2002 08:20:26 PST > Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:20:26 -0800 (PST) > From: James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...> > Subject: The Intended usage of GNU software (was Treecc Ruby support) > To: Rhys Weatherley <rwe...@zi...> > CC: dev...@do... > In-Reply-To: <200...@ya...> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Length: 1992 > > This is a late response to the mail from Rhys : > http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2002-November/008569.html > > I wrote : > > The usage of the c-trees from perl I think is more interesting. > > Rhys Wrote : > >To you perhaps. Presumably there are existing tools for generating > >Perl modules from .h files and such. Those tools can be used to > wrap > >the C treecc output files in Perl if required by a particular > project. > > That is the types of tools that I am working on with inline and swig. > They produce wrappers for many languages. The problem is that the > treecc also generates accessor methods, and the swig tool also does. > > This will be a problem, and we need to work on some better interfaces > between swig and treecc to be able to create multiple language > bindings > for the treecc program. The usage of swig in general for c# and pnet > will be very interesting and I think that this is worth researching. > > The entire point of the introspector project is to provide an API for > compiler tool writers and Compiler end users to access the needed > data. > > > Rhys then wrote : > >Treecc is a tool for the compiler-writer, not third parties. If the > >compiler writer had intended to allow their internal representation > >to be accessed to third parties, they would have already done so. > > This is what I have a problem with, and the source of our conflict. > The presumed "intend use". The indended use of compiler software is > of > very little meaning to the end user. The compiler can do a lot more > that just produce .exe files. > > The entire introspector project is to get rid of this artificial gap > between the compiler writer and the users. We will be breaking down > these barriers. > > The GPL has not limitations at all on "intended use", > the entire GNU project was build to prevent any such false > limitations. > see the section "Don't people have a right to control how their > creativity is used?", I think that falls underneath it. > > I have copied some snippets here for your reading from the GNU > manifesto and the 4 fundamental freedoms of the GNU projects. > > Maybe you want to think about the possible new and creative works > that > other people may make based on your tools. Limiting them artificially > for any reason is against the spirit of the GNU manifesto. > > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html > >>Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, > a > >>user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make > them > >>himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them > for > >>him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or > >>company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make > >>changes. > > >>"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is > used?" > >>"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control > over > >>other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives > more > >>difficult. > > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html > > >>You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose. > >>You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To > >>make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to > the > >>source code, since making changes in a program without having the > >>source code is exceedingly difficult.) > >>You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a > >>fee. > >>You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the > program, > >>so that the community can benefit from your improvements > > I will be consentrating on the GCC interface for the next > weeks/months > and drawing my self out of the discussions here on the dotgnu > project. > > In fact, the cscc and treecc support will be put on hold untill we > can > resolve some fundamental issues. I dont want to get in a constant > fight > with you over this Rhys. The dotgnu project is going to have to make > some decisions if they are going to try and artificially limit the > users of thier software, or give them the freedom that they are > promised by the GPL. > > mike > > ===== > James Michael DuPont > http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ > ===== James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ |