Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
> 
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.


Prove it!

The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
data held within and the music is protected by copyright.

The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
e.g. How a switch statement is implemented varies from one CPU to the next,
but it has been precisely and efficiently put together by someone
for each and every CPU!


 
> <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html>
>      If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
>      during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
>      advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
>      GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
>      you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
>      propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
>      develop your own GPL-incompatible software.
> 
> I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!