Re: [stella] 6502 superoptimizer update

Subject: Re: [stella] 6502 superoptimizer update
From: aaron <amw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:39:28 -0400
Assuming the code you license with the GPL is all your original work  
and therefore under copyright to you, if you GPL your program then

1) all subsequent works which include your code and all works which  
are derived from your code must conform to the grants/restrictions in  
the GPL if they themselves are offered to third parties
2) the gpl requires all third party users get access to the source code
3) all third party users are unrestricted in their ability to run  
your program for any purpose, to modify your program, to release  
those modifications to the public, and to redistribute your program  
as long as they conform to the rules above.

But note : The output from your program is not subject to GPL  
licensing requirements. (eg programs made with gcc do not have to be  
themselves GPLd)

If you decide to use the GPL and it turns out that was a horrible  
mistake it's within your discretion to re-release the code under a  
different license and stop supporting the older GPLd version.

So if you GPL your program then no one will be able to take your  
SuperOptimizer and using your code or making a derivative work based  
on your code release a SuperDuperOptimizer unless their  
SuperDuperOptimizer is also Free Software as defined by Richard  
Stallman, summarized above.

Someone could create a SuperDuperOptimizer and use it in the privacy  
of their own home (and I think business as well) without worrying  
about the GPL because in that case there would be no third party  
users who have rights. But if they release the SuperDuperOptimizer to  
anyone then the GPL rules immediately inhere to that user.

Someone could take the output of the SuperOptimizer and make a super  
wicked awesome vcs game, call it Dirt Gherkin, and be unaffected by  
the GPL.

Don't know if this helps, but there you go.

This isn't legal advice, it's a friendly Stella comment. Also, it  
might be wrong. :)


On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:13 AM, B. Watson wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2005, Fred Quimby wrote:
>> I will post the source next time.  I want to clean up some of the  
>> code
>> first.  I have been thinking about releasing under the GPL - is  
>> there any
>> reason why this wouldn't be a good idea?
> Don't worry, we can handle `adult' comments :)
> /* WTF $#^%$%& why doesn't this $@@^& work?! */
> I'm a big fan of the GPL, so I think it's a great idea. I'm no lawyer,
> but I'd say that the optimized code you generate would not count as
> a derived work (any more than the binaries built by a GPL'ed compiler
> would, or the images created by a GPL'ed image editor).
> --
> B.
> Archives (includes files) at 
> archives/
> Unsub & more at

Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread