[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Now it's my compiler!

From: Rjack
Subject: Now it's my compiler!
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:06:48 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

First the GPL gobbled up your source code, the wife, kids, family
pets and your car. Now it gobbles up your compiler too. Alas! If
they want my compiler, they'll have to pry it from my cold lifeless

To wit:
A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance

* * * * * * * * * *
4.2.3  What About the Compiler?

The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the
compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged
to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources,
inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered
mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition – both in GPLv2 and
GPLv3 – has not been typically read to include the compiler itself,
but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging
. . .

If you have used a proprietary, third-party compiler to build the
software, then you probably cannot ship it to your customers. We
consider the name of the compiler, its exact version number, and
where it can be acquired as information that must be provided as
part of the Corresponding Source. This information is essential to
anyone who wishes to produce a binary. It is not the intent of the
GPL to require you to distribute third-party software tools to your
customer (provided the tools themselves are not based on the GPL’d
software shipped), but we do believe it requires that you give the
user all the essential non-proprietary facts that you had at your
disposal to build the software. Therefore, if you choose not to
distribute the compiler, you should include a readme about where you
got it, what version it was, and who to contact to acquire it,
regardless of whether your compiler is FOSS, proprietary, or
internally developed.
* * * * * * * * * *

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]