Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things (was Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler)
Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>:
> Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I
> feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output
of a compiler might contain copyrightable elements from the compiler.
Indeed it typically does: the runtime support library. However, in the
case of OCaml the runtime support library seems to be identified as
such and given a different licence: LGPL plus additional permission.
Do you have any reason to believe that OCaml might be inserting some
other copyrightable stuff into its binaries? If not, why are you
raising the issue now, and why are you raising it in connection with
OCaml rather than with GCC, say?
If you're going to suggest that a compiler licence should give some
general BSD-like permission for copyrightable stuff that gets inserted
into the output, then the problem is that someone might modify the
compiler so that it outputs itself in a Quine-like fashion, so unless
you want to BSD the whole compiler you have no choice but to identify
the runtime support bits and give broader permission just for those
parts, which is what the GCC and the OCaml people seem to have done.
Reply to: