Plug-In Architecture On the Way For GCC

VonGuard writes "This year marks the 25th anniversary of the GNU Operating System. A major part of that system has always been the GNU Compiler Collection. This year, some of the earliest bits of GCC also turn 25, and yet some of the collection's most interesting years of growth may still be ahead. The GCC team announced today that the long-standing discussion over how to allow plug-ins to be written for GCC has been settled. The FSF and the GCC team have decided to apply the GPL to plug-ins. That means all that's left is to build a framework for plug-ins; no small task to be sure. But building this framework should make it easier for people to contribute to the GCC project, and some universities are already working on building windows into the compilation process, with the intent of releasing plug-ins."

Comments

Re:So why do I want plugins in my complier?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Go to the GCC Plugins Wiki & search for "Potential use cases".

Re:GPL to plugins?

[Bruce Perens]

I think you need to look at that more carefully. First, it's not a legal statement. It seems to be written by engineers and no counsel is identified. Also, FSF knows better than to make such a statement. Looking at the content of the page, they give the arguments a defendant could make, and the fact that plugins might make it easier to connect proprietary software to GCC, and that they could make the plugin a demarcation between programs if they wanted to. But nothing on the page settles the issue.

Bruce

Re:GPL to plugins?

[RiotingPacifist]

from a quick look at the mailing list it appears to me the problem is
1) company produces new hardware
2) company produces proprietary plug-in to produce asm for their hardware platform
3) they do not open their specifications
4) they are able to take advantage of GCC and its front ends while using a closed backend
5) ???
6) profit

I may by wrong as i said this is just a quick read of the javabyte code discussion somebody linked to from here.

Re:GPL to plugins?

[roystgnr]

A plugin uses the host application's API. It is, therefore a derived work.

From Sega V. Accolade:

Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the "idea/expression distinction" that determines the extent of copyright protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of accomplishing a given task or fulfilling a particular market demand, the programmer's choice of program structure and design may be highly creative and idiosyncratic. However, computer programs are, in essence, utilitarian articles - articles that accomplish tasks. As such, they contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by the function to be performed, by considerations of efficiency, or by external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1241, 1253-56 (2d Cir. 1992) ("CAI"). In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."

Even if the header file can't be legally copied verbatim, you can write a new header file that's API-compatible and not be infringing. Good thing, too, or the Wine folks would be in some serious trouble.