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

[Benno <benno@benno.id.au>]

On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 16:10:46 +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
>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.

Sure, I don't think the license status of the code transformer is the
interesting thing here, more the fact that it is transforming it into 
something other than an object file/executable.

(btw: I thought it must either be GPL or not allowed at all.)

Benno