On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:46:09AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +0000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > > The output of gcc is > > not covered by the licence that covers gcc. > > That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any > and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on > it. > > There's no answer to the general question of whether a compiled work > is a derivative of the compiler; all else aside, it depends on the > compiler. It can certainly be plausible for this to be the > case. It is lawyer-bait. > > This is usually not an issue because most compilers have licenses > similar to gcc, disclaiming any restriction on the output. Not because > it can't be done.
A more verbose answer to this question is at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput -- Glenn Maynard
