On 2008-09-26, Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> OK, I'm missing something here.
>>> [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary
>>> precisely *why* is this the case?
>>
>> It's not the case. All that the document says is that since you
>> can't distribute a non-free compiler, you just say what compiler
>> you use and that's enough.
>
> You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.
You don't own the software. You don't get to set terms for
distribution. The "owner" does. If you don't like this, you are
always free to anything that you didn't write yourself from the
"product" you are intent on distributing/publishing.
[deletia]
--
My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
