Re: DragonEgg has been revived

[Chris M Moore <zmower@ntlworld.com>]

On 23/05/2018 16:51, Dan'l Miller wrote:

<snip>

> You are so GPLv2; that is the way it was under GPLv2 back in the old days.  Newsflash: nearly a decade ago, they relicensed modern releases of FSF GCC as GPLv3 with Runtime Exception v3.1 which does in fact have licensing restrictions on Target Code and on Eligible Compilation Process (via Runtime Exception v3.1) by merely passing, say, MIT/X11-licensed or BSD-licensed source code through the modern GCC compiler to generate the Target Code for that MIT/X11-licensed or BSD-licensed executable or DLL.  Simon, you are •factually incorrect• nowadays (post-GPLv2) in your claim “that the GCC compiler itself doesn't assert any licensing restrictions over target code generated by it beyond that derived from the original source code”, because the ••GPLv3 license of the modern GCC compiler itself•• spreads (dare I say, virally) to the otherwise MIT/X11-licensed or BSD-licensed Target Code

Nope.  The Eligible Compilation Process covers the compilation process 
itself, not the end product.  This was introduced to stop non-GPLed 
plugins to gcc.  See https://lwn.net/Articles/301959/

-- 
sig pending (since 1995)