Daniel Berlin - Re: libtool (was Re: [patch] releases.html) Zack Weinberg" writes:

> Yes, libbackend.so might be nice just to reduce disk consumption.
> (Didn't HJ have patches for this a long, long, time ago?) Wouldn't
> it cause arguments about opening loopholes for non-free front ends,
> though?

Can we get over this yet?

SGI already did it with the backend. They go directly from trees to
WHIRL, using gcc/g as a front end.

If someone wants to do it with the frontend, we aren't making it that
much easier by using a shared library.

Would any respectable company really want to try to make a compiler
when the legal status of doing a non-free frontend is pretty shaky?

And are we going to be able to really stop unrespectable companies
from doing it anyway?

Why should we not be able to further the usefulness and usability of a
free software project because someone, somewhere, might find it
slightly easier to integrate into something that may make it illegal,
or not illegal, for them to redistribute it.

--Dan