Re: Now it's my compiler!

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   [2] GPL code + proprietary compiler = non-distributable binary

   precisely *why* is this the case?  


This claim is really not true, just because one uses a non-free
compiler to compile a GPL program does not make it non-distributable.
There are several factors that are involved.

But the gist of the argument is based on the definition of
`Corresponding Source':

|   The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
| the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
| work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
| control those activities.  However, it does not include the work's
| System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
| programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
| which are not part of the work.  For example, Corresponding Source
| includes interface definition files associated with source files for
| the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
| linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
| such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
| subprograms and other parts of the work.
|
|   The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
| can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
| Source.
|
|   The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
| same work.

The point of the section is to give he user all information required
to build (or link) the program.  It might just be a matter of having a
README stating that one used vesion A of the FOO compiler (be it free
software, or non-free softwaare).