Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 -0500 >> From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist_at_gmail.com> >> Sender: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org >> >>> As for Michel's point that the results of the compilation are not >>> covered by GPL - this seems to be stated explicitly in the GPLv3 license. >> Which is my question. Why do we need update the compiler when the >> license shouldn't matter? >> Has anyone asked the FSF about this issue anyway? Does the FSF claim >> that the output of the compiler becomes "free" software? > > Smells like FUD to me. In all of my reading, I have never seen such a > claim. There may be some GPLv3 issues, but I seriously doubt this is > one. I just wanted to clarify (because my post is a bit ambiguous) - I was trying to say that the GPLv3 seems to be explicitly saying that the output of the compilation is NOT covered by GPL: To quote (** added): 2. Basic Permissions. All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. **The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.** This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.Received on Tue Jan 13 2009 - 03:56:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:40 UTC