Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!boulder!fozzard
From: fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <9239@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 6 Jun 89 17:59:16 GMT
References: <108109@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <8906052357.AA00981@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 16

In article <8906052357.AA00981@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
>
>When you use a program that MERELY translates one representation of a
>program into another, the author of that program has nothing to say
>about the legal status of your program.  This means you can use
>...  GCC then is just a translator...

This distiction of what is a translation and what is source code can
get to be a very subtle one (and dont lawyers love subtleties!)  Why is
substituting a line of my source code with GNU-written assembly routines
so legally dnd morally different from substituting a GNU-written C routine
(as from a library)?
========================================================================
Richard Fozzard					"Serendipity empowers"
University of Colorado			
fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu                   (303)492-8136 or 444-3168