Luis is completely right that this question is independent of the FAQ entry being discussed in this thread. Could we please make it a new thread if we're going to discuss it (but also not discuss it unless we're going to write a FAQ entry about it, which I suggest we not do because it's not actually frequently asked of OSI in my experience)?
-Karl Chuck Swiger <[email protected]> writes: >On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >> Are restrictions on the *use* or *results* of proprietary compilers >> consistent with generating open source programs in that language? > >No. However, compilation by itself is a mechanical task which performs no >creative transformation. > >> Can the copying of binary code into an executable by the compiler >> itself affect the >> license on that executable? > >Sure. If you link an executable against Oracle's client libraries to talk to >their database, that executable includes proprietary code which would need to >be appropriately licensed. > >> I have heard people ask if running a GPL compiler that includes GPL >> libraries into a resulting program creates a GPL obligation for the >> resulting program. I hope not! > >The GPL provides an exception for their compiler runtime library which >permits this: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html > >Most or almost all other compilers also explicitly permit the use of >the associated >compiler runtime libraries with software under arbitrary licenses. >End-users rarely >encounter this because most platforms already ship with working versions of the >compiler runtime and standard C/C++ libraries, and programs use >dynamic linking to pull >those in rather than needing to statically link them into the executable. [1] > >Regards, _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
