Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I > feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output of a compiler might contain copyrightable elements from the compiler. Indeed it typically does: the runtime support library. However, in the case of OCaml the runtime support library seems to be identified as such and given a different licence: LGPL plus additional permission. Do you have any reason to believe that OCaml might be inserting some other copyrightable stuff into its binaries? If not, why are you raising the issue now, and why are you raising it in connection with OCaml rather than with GCC, say? If you're going to suggest that a compiler licence should give some general BSD-like permission for copyrightable stuff that gets inserted into the output, then the problem is that someone might modify the compiler so that it outputs itself in a Quine-like fashion, so unless you want to BSD the whole compiler you have no choice but to identify the runtime support bits and give broader permission just for those parts, which is what the GCC and the OCaml people seem to have done.
