On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: > Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The no-service contract version of the GPL is not the same as the > > standard GPLv2. > > I don't see how that can be--we're talking about a GCC-based compiler, > right?
Well, that's beside the point anyway. The output of a program is beyond the scope of the source code license for the program. However the default is for the output to be copyrighted the author. Thus the author of a program is free to say (give license, in other words) that the output of a program can distributed. The real point is the Shed Skin author can both license the program under the GPLv2 and also say that the output from his program is not bound by any license. There's no conflict unless the author of Shed Skin wants there to be. Worst case, if indeed the GPLv2 says it covers the output of the program (which I don't believe it does), copyright law still trumps everything and the author is free at add an exemption to the license if he chooses, which is what I've seen done with Bison. Bison is also a special case because the output of bison contains code fragments that are part of the bison source code itself, which is under the GPL. Thus a special exception had to be made in this case. Anyway, the only real point is that if there is a concern about the copyright and licensing of the output of Shed Skin, then we merely need to ask the author of it to clarify matters and move on with life. With the exception of GNAT, to date no GPL'd compiler has ever placed a GPL restriction on its output. Whether this is explicit or implicit doesn't matter, so long as it's there. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
