On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:16:06 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: > Tim Smith wrote: >> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins. > > Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal > meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is > derived from their runtime libraries.
Anyone with even a casual idea of how a c compiler works understands that the output of a compiler typically includes a certain amount of linked in code from the standard c runtime library, such as startup code, string handling routines, etc.. THAT code is GPL'd, and that's why they need the exceptions. Not because the compiler generates code that is GPL'd (it doesn't). I agree that "derived work" should not be interpreted to mean "linked code", but that's been the classic interpretation of the FSF since the beginning, and someone needs to challenge this in court. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
