Ruth A. Kramer wrote: > I may be off the mark, but to me, part of the implied "question" > (perhaps in an earlier post?) is whether a compiled program is a > derivative work of the compiler? > > IANAL, but in my understanding it is not. It is, however, a derived > work of the source code, IIUC.
Usually a compiler adds certain code to the executable it produces. For example, it may add a standard library or start-up code. As a result, the executable may very well qualify as a derivative work of this code. If you use the gcc compiler, the 'libgcc' library is linked against your code. This library is under the GPL with a special exception: In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine executable.) So in this particular case, the derivative work can be distributed under other licenses than the GPL. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
