[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lirc license

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:25:34AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:41:37AM +0000, Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> > > I was under the impression that the output of a program wasn't covered by the
> > > licence of the program (or any licence dictated by the author of the program).
> > > Wouldn't that be similar to the output of GCC being automatically covered by the
> > > GPL, or am I misunderstanding something (I wouldn't be surprised if I was).
> > 
> > The output of a program may be covered by the license of the
> > program. It's one of those fuzzy cases that is difficult to
> > predict. To avoid problems, the license of gcc explicitly disclaims
> > this, granting you an unlimited license to do anything with its
> > output.
> In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy.  IIRC, libgcc is linked
> statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used
> to be GPL.  libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to
> prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed.
> In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc
> that created license problems.

gcc itself carries a similar exemption, to be sure. The fact that
other odd things happen in the gcc codebase isn't particularly

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: