Re: What exactly is Derivative ?
Jonathan P Tomer <phouchg@cif.rochester.edu> writes:
> > Does that mean the binary is a derivative of gcc?
> that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
> obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
> things to a bit of source to turn it into a binary; its optimisations
> and special dialectic features are a distinct part of the program, and
> most other compilers don't do the same thing
The mere fact that the binary would be different if another compiler
had been used does not in itself make the binary a gcc-derived
work.
Howeer, there are other reasons that might concievably cause the
binary to be derived from the compiler - notably if the compiler
assembles the code from code generation templates that are nontrivial
enough to enjoy separate copyright protection.
> were rights to the output of gcc specially exempted from the gpl, or is it
> determined that it really isn't derivative for some reason?
There does not seem to be any specific exemption clause in the gcc
distribution itself, but FSF writes at
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html#gpl
| It is permissible to compile non-free programs with GCC. Compiling a
| program with GCC and distributing the binary does not require you to
| make the program free software or release its source code. This is
| because the run-time library included with GCC comes with special
| permission to link it with your compiled programs without restriction.
| The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by
| the program that you are compiling, not by GCC.
This must mean that the FSF does not think that the object code
produced by gcc is a deriviative of the machine description used.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: