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

[Matthew Hannigan <mlh@zip.com.au>]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:31:02PM +1000, Benno wrote:
> Sorry, I'll be more clear. If I have someone elses code, and the only
> license I have to use it is the GPL, that gives me the right to use and
> redistribute the code + binaries given some conditions.
> 
> Now, if I transform that code, say, into a call-flow graph. And lets just
> assume that my call-flow graph generator is my own proprietary code. Now
> I want to distribute the output.  Is that output:
> 
> 1/ Modified source-code. (In which case it must be released under GPL)
> 
> 2/ An object file. (In which case it also must be released under GPL)
> 
> 3/ <something else>. (In which case the license gives me no right, and hence 
>                       I can't distribute it.)

IANAL, but surely the answer is that it must be under the GPL,
since the process is equivalent to what a compiler does.

Compiling GPL code with say, Intel's C compiler doesn't relieve
anyone of any responsibilities of the GPL when distributing the
resulting exectubles/object code.

Matt