Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 14:23 UTC, submitted by Valhalla
General Development "PathScale announced today that the EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite is now available as an open source project and free download for Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. This release includes documentation and the complete development stack, including compiler, debugger, assembler, runtimes and standard libraries. EKOPath is the product of years of ongoing development, representing one of the industries highest performance Intel 64 and AMD C, C++ and Fortran compilers." More here.
Thread beginning with comment 477352
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

lemur2,

"The definition of 'derivative work' comes from copyright law, not from the FSF. Copyright law itself is the law, not whatever the FSF says or thinks, or is thought to say or think."

Then maybe that's why they got rid of the terminology "derivative work" and replaced it with "covered work" in gpl3.


Hypothetically, MS could release a free educational edition of MS-Word which was only to be used for public domain educational research papers under a license which explicitly revokes the rights for any other use.

Do think someone could obtain MS-Word under this license and legally claim that they're entitled to use Word for private/commercial work when they get caught?

If not, then how the GCC case different?

Keep in mind that both the GPL2/3 revoke rights in this manor.


GPL2:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.

GPL3:

12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

Then maybe that's why they got rid of the terminology "derivative work" and replaced it with "covered work" in gpl3.


No, those are two different (though sometimes related) things. A "derivative work" is, as has already been mentioned, defined in copyright law. A "covered work" is a work "covered" by a particular license (GPL3 in this case). A derivative work of a GPL3 covered work would also be a covered work. But a derivative work of a BSD-licensed covered work might or might not be a covered work.

Hypothetically, MS could release a free educational edition of MS-Word which was only to be used for public domain educational research papers under a license which explicitly revokes the rights for any other use. Do think someone could obtain MS-Word under this license and legally claim that they're entitled to use Word for private/commercial work when they get caught? If not, then how the GCC case different? Keep in mind that both the GPL2/3 revoke rights in this manor.


Hypothetically, Microsoft could do that, yes. The cases are different because that's not what the GPL says. Again: "derivative work" is a legal term explicitly defined in copyright law.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

cmchittom,

"Hypothetically, Microsoft could do that, yes. The cases are different because that's not what the GPL says. Again: 'derivative work' is a legal term explicitly defined in copyright law."

I don't know if I want to touch this again, but this is mixing up two separate points. The fact that our documents are not derived from MS sources has no bearing on whether MS can legally specify the types of documents we are permitted to work on under a public/educational Word license.

In the same vein, a visual studio license would have the right to limit our use to non-commercial code, regardless of whether our source code is legally derived from anyone else's.

Edited 2011-06-16 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3