PE>> Now since the compiler just translates C into object code, there
PE>> are absolutely no restrictions on using this tool.  ie the object
PE>> code is yours to do with what you will.

db> Assuming this is part of the license for using the compiler, yes
db> (which it is for most compilers).

PE> Does anyone know if anyone is allowed to say "If you use this
PE> compiler to translate C code into object code, then we own the
PE> rights to the object code."?

Legally, they dont have a leg to stand on. Corse a contractual agreement
between you and the compiler supplier is another matter entirely. The
short story is tho that unless you actually sign a proper contract, they
havent got a hope, and they certainly cant rely on silly stuff like
printing it on the envelope containing the disks, thats a total wank
legally.

PE> If they are allowed to, IMO it is much like saying "If you use this
PE> compiler to translate C code into object code, then you have to sell
PE> your first born child into slavery.".

Well, its closer to say a supplier of say drill press saying that they
have rights to what you make on that drill press. They dont.

PE> I have seen people say that if you use their tool which beautifies
PE> your code (totally rewrites it in fact), then they own the code thus
PE> generated, unless you buy the tool (you could have it on trial).

Its a total wank and a try on. They dont have a legal leg to stand on.

The fundamental principle is that the supplier so tools dont have any
rights over what is produced using those tools.

Librarys are different, there is a real sense in which the code in that
library is actually included in the EXE.

PE> I don't know if they can legally enforce that though.

No chance.

--- PQWK202