Like the other guy said, they are not obligated to provide the source to any of us, since they didn't distribute it to us.
Funnily, though, the person who leaked it is. And since he probably can not do it, he's in violation of the GPL for having leaked it without first getting hold of the source code.
Why would they do that? Clang was created from scratch by Apple, and they released it openly, because they know it benefits them. Why would they suddenly close it, when they were the ones who made the decision to open it in the first place?
The App Store mechanism does not let you install rebuilt software. Thus, you can not fulfil the requirements of the license, and thus, the license forbids you from releasing through that channel.
Generally this is resolved by only depriving people of civil rights with due process (but the US government is increasingly finding ways around that pesky little detail...).
The discussion here is about withdrawing rights after due process.
Do you actually think that anyone but the tiniest sliver of a fraction of all the people whose works he made money off had given any kind of consent for it? That is pretty absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the other guy said, they are not obligated to provide the source to any of us, since they didn't distribute it to us.
Funnily, though, the person who leaked it is. And since he probably can not do it, he's in violation of the GPL for having leaked it without first getting hold of the source code.
What makes me extra suspicious is why I didn't see that charge in this article summary.
It's... It's in the article summary.
I mean, it's right there. In the summary.
Literally.
So no more consumer software?
What kind of pron is it? A girl of 17 years, 364 days, looking "provocative"?
No. Next question?
...Why exactly would you expect commercial software programmers to be at an RMS talk in the first place?
The terms of the GPLv3 make lawyers very, very uncomfortable, though, unlike the other ones.
No, it made it unviable for them to hold patents at all while also using the GPLv3.
Nobody is telling you you have to give your code away.
RMS is.
Why would they do that? Clang was created from scratch by Apple, and they released it openly, because they know it benefits them. Why would they suddenly close it, when they were the ones who made the decision to open it in the first place?
Except I am not the one making the claim. The claim here is that companies "are trying to make free software disappear". That is what requires proof.
It is free software.
The App Store mechanism does not let you install rebuilt software. Thus, you can not fulfil the requirements of the license, and thus, the license forbids you from releasing through that channel.
And you know plenty of it gets overturned once it goes to court, yes?
As far as I can tell, that has nothing at all to do with the scenario being discussed here.
He did not mention gcc a single time in his comment. You were the one who brought up gcc.
Oh, sorry, misread your comment. Yes, that would work, but is fairly complicated and not always possible either.
You were quoting a line where I was talking about him, and saying you fixed it, so I kind of assumed you were?
Generally this is resolved by only depriving people of civil rights with due process (but the US government is increasingly finding ways around that pesky little detail...).
The discussion here is about withdrawing rights after due process.
Yes, there is: Patent law.
Do you actually think that anyone but the tiniest sliver of a fraction of all the people whose works he made money off had given any kind of consent for it? That is pretty absurd.
You also have to provide a way to replace the LGPL'd code in the final product.
He was pretty clear when he said "if iostream.h is GPL".
He did not say he was linking against libstdc++. In fact, he pretty much said he wasn't, as libstdc++ is not under the GPL.
He was naming a hypothetical example of an iostream.h that is GPL.
No, the GPL prohibits releasing software on the App Store. Apple are just going along with the wishes of the authors of the GPL-licensed code there.
Like, develop and release a better compiler as open source?
Yes, he's "all for" selling it. It's up to you to figure out how to actually do that while giving it away at the same time though, not his problem.