More questions about the QPL for a compiler

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output.  Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part.  I know this is the case for most
compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well.

Now I look again at QPL 6:

> You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of
> the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
> following requirements...

And I wonder about executables compiled by the QPL'd Ocaml compilers.
Are they application programs that link with versions of the Software?
It sure sounds like it.  I doubt INRIA intended the license to be read
that way.  But saying, "this is free because they didn't really mean
what they wrote," doesn't seem a good route.

Under this interpretation, does this fail DFSG 9?  Or is it no worse
than the case of Emacs, where .elc files must be distributed under the
terms of the GPL?

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu