> Remember you thought my thought that anything produced by the
 > GNU compiler forced the original source code to come under
 > the same restrictions, and you gave an example in GNU chess,
 > does that mean I have to send them every game of chess I play
 > using GNU chess?

Unless you can quote me on that, I'm afraid that I'll have to deny saying
it - I certainly don't recall it. The example is ridiculous and I don't
agree with the conclusion either.

If you actually read the license agreement for the GNU compiler, you'll
find that they don't require anything of the sort. In any case, only the
compiler and library source is copyrighted by the FSF and your copyright to
the source which you're compiling cannot be affected either way.  As I've
said before, the FSF - or anyone - cannot cause any change to title to
anything. They certainly cannot 'steal' your copyright from the mere fact
that you've compiled it with their compiler.


 > Well the output from Bison is/was just like that!  They say
 > because a lot of the code "generated" is from their original
 > source, that the resulting work needs to be available freely.

What the FSF can or cannot enforce in this case is much less certain than
their standard GPL.  In practice, I doubt that they can require you to do
more than supply the original skeleton from which the source was derived
since they certainly can't have any say in your grammar or the output of
Bison itself (I know the license says differently, but I'd be getting legal
advise if I wanted to use it commercially and not supply sources - but
you'll probably be saving some $$$'s on legal fees by using Berkeley's YACC
which hasn't have such a restrictive license).

The FSF's intent is simply to prevent 'source code hogging'. They're a
little fanatical about it sometimes.


david

PS: Maybe this conference should be renamed: AUST_(C)_HERE would seem more
appropriate lately. :)

---