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 relevant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature