-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Remove gcc and try to compile again. It won't work. Does that mean the > binary is a derivative of gcc?
that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique things to a bit of source to turn it into a binary; its optimisations and special dialectic features are a distinct part of the program, and most other compilers don't do the same thing -- in fact i'd willing to bet that any given compiler would produce different output (object code) from any given set of inputs (source files). even *extremely* simple things like 'int main(){}' produce different executable code under gcc and sun's cc (when called with no extra options on an ultra-1 running solaris 2.5; interestingly the gcc code weighs in at a full kilobyte less than the sun cc code). so clearly the object code depends in a very significant way on the compiler used; doesn't this mean that the output of gcc is a derived work and must be released under gpl? again, the answer is easily empirically proven to be no, because there are lots of non-free -- even proprietary -- programs compiled with gcc, but could someone explain the rationale behind the decision to me? were rights to the output of gcc specially exempted from the gpl, or is it determined that it really isn't derivative for some reason? if the latter, what reason? maybe it just hasn't been thought of and we can go force hundreds of programs to be re-released as free (or more likely withdrawn or recompiled with something else)? ;P - --phouchg "Reasoning is partly insane" --Rush, "Anagram (for Mongo)" PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~phouchg/pgpkey.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNvbvbp49M+7gJHRJEQLvbACgy/CKiCRAYDvHziGVBP9m1rrhQZAAn3+y D/cLG7zW+UxFUD/uXFIkIOFC =QHlC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----