Re: Bug#101318: so what's wrong with freedos exactly?
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 04:16:56AM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
> > My first though on this particular case was this: compilers, free or
> > non-free, are used to compile source code that can be under any license
> > of choice by its copyright holder. Users of a compiler do not want
> > their choice of compiler to interfere with their choice of a license.
> >
> > Compiling your code with gcc doesn't make your code or the resulting
> > binaries subject to the gpl, does it? (lets troll some bsd ml..)
>
> It doesn't because the gcc library that is automatically linked in is
> explicitly not under the GPL but under a do-what-you-want license.
> Otherwise the compiled and linked executable would be under GPL.
Yes I see the problem more clearly now. Indeed the problem lies
with the requirements that the gpl imposes on the source code of the
compiler libraries. Sorry for missing your point, Herbert and thanks
for being patient.
> However I doubt there is a) source code available for the Borland
> compiler library and b) that it is under a GPL compatible license.
Now please tell me if I'm wrong about this as well:
The implication of the facts considered here is, that it would in general
not be allowed to distribute gpl'ed software, when it was built with
a compiler that does not provide the sources of its runtime libraries
under a gpl-tolerant license.
The practical implications that this would have, just weird me out.
Maybe that is why I kept missing the point for such a long time.
If this argument is not completely nonsensical, should we not ask the
free software foundation, if this is really what they meant?
Cheers,
Joost
Reply to: