On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rjack wrote: > > You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler. > > Do so!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html <begin excerpts> Section 1, Paragraph 3-5: The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. 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. Section 6, paragraph 3: A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work. <end excerpts> Boiled down, it appears that an arbitrary developer: [a] needs to be able to provide source code for his modifications, and source code or a link to source code for a FOSS product, as one might expect for the GPL, upon request. [b] does NOT need to provide any information/media/software regarding his compilation environment beyond that needed for a runnable distribution of any derived/compiled product, though it may need to identify the proper environment (e.g., icc on an x86). See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs . As an aside, I would hope that the building of the FOSS code would be possible using GNU products such as GCC, and certainly if the product does not build, one can attempt modification and rerelease back upstream. Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I affiliated with GNU. [snipped] _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
