How the GNU copyright applies to output of language translators

[John Gilmore]

jdc at naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) wrote:
> >       (1) My understanding of BISON is that if you use it, then
> >           the thing you created with it must be freely distributed.
> >           Agreed?

This is true, since bison's output includes a literal copy of a parser
(bison.simple or bison.hairy) that contains the GNU copyright.  You
could write your own parser, pulling out the copyrighted GNU
one, and distribute the rest of the bison output.  (Bison generates
a bunch of tables and some code, and appends the actual parser to
the generated stuff.  The actual parser is what's copyright.  The
tables and such are not.)

> >       (2) What about gcc?  My understanding is that if you port
> >           gcc to a new machine, it must be freely distributed.
> >           Agreed?

No, you can port gcc to a machine and never give it to anybody.  But if
you do give it away or sell it, you must distribute source (or make it
accessible at no higher cost than binaries, for 3 years) and must not
restrict redistribution of the sources or binaries.

> >       (3) Now, what about programs compiled with gcc?  (I.e. my
> >           own code, compiled to binary using gcc.  Must the
> >           binaries be freely distributed?  What about the original
> >           source?

Since the output of gcc contains no copyrights (unlike the output
of bison, which contains a substantial piece of copyrighted code),
you can do whatever you want with it.  The GNU project would be
happy if you *would* freely distribute your code, but there is no
compulsion to do so.

>                                  (Would anyone from Free Software 
> Foundation, Inc.  care to respond?)

I'm not from the Free Software Foundation but have worked with them
for a while, and have seen this question answered before.
-- 
{pyramid,pacbell,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu			  gnu at toad.com
"Don't fuck with the name space!" -- Hugh Daniel