
Thread beginning with comment 239085
To view parent comment, click here.
RE[7]: Ah well
by smitty on Thu 10th May 2007 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ah well"
Member since:

That's goofy.

Well, at least we agree on one point.

The GPL requires derived works to be put under the GPL

Yes, but what in the world makes you think that compiling an unrelated program in a compiler makes it "derived" from that compiler? It's generated, not derived. To derive from that compiler, you'd need to take code, or at least algorithms or ideas from it, and at that point it doesn't matter where you compile it, it would still be a derived work.

the Visual Studio EULA does not require derived works to be put under the EULA

I have to admit, I've never read the VS EULA. Still, I'm quite certain they don't allow you to create a derived work from it - you can't copy the VS installation CD and add a couple features to it, then resell. Obviously, though, they let you do whatever you want with programs you create yourself. Just like every other compiler...

Do you understand what a compiler does? It's basically a translator. If I wrote a speech in German, then had some program translate it into Russian, the speech still belongs to me and I can do whatever I want to with it. Just because the translator was GPL software doesn't mean my speech somehow gets infected and I then have to release it under the GPL as well. If I create a picture in GIMP, or a document in OOo, or a webpage in Firefox I don't have any obligation to release those under a certain license either.

Edited 2007-05-10 04:31

Reply Parent Score: 5