[2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary precisely *why* is this the case?
This claim is really not true, just because one uses a non-free compiler to compile a GPL program does not make it non-distributable. There are several factors that are involved. But the gist of the argument is based on the definition of `Corresponding Source': | The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all | the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable | work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to | control those activities. However, it does not include the work's | System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free | programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but | which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source | includes interface definition files associated with source files for | the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically | linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, | such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those | subprograms and other parts of the work. | | The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users | can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding | Source. | | The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that | same work. The point of the section is to give he user all information required to build (or link) the program. It might just be a matter of having a README stating that one used vesion A of the FOO compiler (be it free software, or non-free softwaare). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
