Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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 The mere fact that the binary would be different if another compiler had been used does not in itself make the binary a gcc-derived work. Howeer, there are other reasons that might concievably cause the binary to be derived from the compiler - notably if the compiler assembles the code from code generation templates that are nontrivial enough to enjoy separate copyright protection. > 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? There does not seem to be any specific exemption clause in the gcc distribution itself, but FSF writes at http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html#gpl | It is permissible to compile non-free programs with GCC. Compiling a | program with GCC and distributing the binary does not require you to | make the program free software or release its source code. This is | because the run-time library included with GCC comes with special | permission to link it with your compiled programs without restriction. | The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by | the program that you are compiling, not by GCC. This must mean that the FSF does not think that the object code produced by gcc is a deriviative of the machine description used. -- Henning Makholm