[Introspector-developers] Fwd: The Intended usage of GNU software (was Treecc Ruby support)

[James M. D. <mdu...@ya...>]

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/