Re: [Linux-aus] Meaning of object code/binary format/executable format in GPL/BSD style licenses

["Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>]

I think it is a different representation of the original code and
probably not covered by the GPL.

Say, your code is licensed under the GPL and written in C. Then
somebody ports that to python. What license would you expect to have
to represent it under? Is there something in the GPL that covers this
situation? I don't know, but my gut feeling no. But IANL either. :)

S.





On 9/20/06, Benno <benno@benno.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 15:09:30 +1000, Conrad Parker wrote:
> >Hi Benno,
> >
> >whether or not this answers your question, my understanding of the GNU GPL
> >is that the "source" which must be made available is in the format most
> >commonly edited by humans.
> >
> >ie. if you write a parser using lex+yacc, then you must distribute the
> >grammar specification, not just the generated C code. If you distribute
> >an MP3 of a MOD music file, you should distribute the MOD itself.
> >
> >I don't think the licensing of your control-flow graph algorithm would be
> >influenced by the license on the input source that is being rendered, if
> >that's what you're asking. IANAL.
> >
>
> Just to be clear I was talking about the licensing of the output file,
> not the CFG algorithm itself.
>
> Benno
>
> (P.S: This isn't something *I* want to do ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus