Rjack <u...@example.net> writes: > amicus_curious wrote: > >> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in >> nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the >> compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs >> based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and >> order, would ever be a unique expression fixed in a media as defined >> by the copyright laws. This whole discussion is akin to the >> arguments in theology regarding how many angles can dance on the >> head of a pin. > > The Free Software Foundation loves to start controversies about > matters such as "GCC generated object code" for good reason.
You are confused. The whole point of the explicitly relinquished (rather than ascertained) rights is to _quell_ any such controversy from the start. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
