As usual, its not always as simple as it seems. The output of some programs is also code. There was an issue here with bison and the GPL: The code output from bison was covered under the GPL (because the code was derived from a template file that was GPL), so any program using that code would also have to be licensed under the GPL. This was fixed by RMS with a special waiver for that particular file. About version 1.24 I think.
Cheers, Carl. On 06/12/05, Ross Drummond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Volkers answer to the part of Nicks question about output from this code not > being required to be licenced under the GPL. seems correct. > > Go to; > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > Cheers Ross Drummond > > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:24, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > It seems to me that people fail to distinguish between a public > > performance of the output of some software (colourful lights at the > > intersection) and the software itself. That's the point of the software > > - produce output. There's no link between the rights to the software and > > the rights to its output, although some authors try hard to establish > > one. Their prerogative. As soon as you blur that distinction with > > something like gimp, it'll be deader than a dodo. > > > >
