Re: GPL License question
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:46:09AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:56:22PM +0000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> > The output of gcc is
> > not covered by the licence that covers gcc.
> That's not strictly true. The license of gcc explicitly permits any
> and all use of any code generated by gcc, and makes no restrictions on
> There's no answer to the general question of whether a compiled work
> is a derivative of the compiler; all else aside, it depends on the
> compiler. It can certainly be plausible for this to be the
> case. It is lawyer-bait.
> This is usually not an issue because most compilers have licenses
> similar to gcc, disclaiming any restriction on the output. Not because
> it can't be done.
A more verbose answer to this question is at