4 ms·

We don't generally consider compiler output to be under the copyright of the author of the compiler.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
I’m not sure that’s entirely analogous. Open source and commercially licensed compilers would have licensing agreements governing how they can be used. But I imagine if a person made their own compiler, and didn’t license it to anybody, but somebody somehow gained access to it and used it to compile their code, that the resulting output would infact be infringing the IP rights of the compilers author. I’m sure you could also publicly release a compiler with a license that assigned copyright of the output to the compiler’s author (though I doubt you could convince anybody to use it).
- burpsnard 7y ago
  Famously, early pc assembler a86/d86 claimed to able to identify unlicenced used from byte-patterns http://eji.com/a86/ http://eji.com/a86/
yorwba 7y ago
GCC has a license exception specifically to allow compiling programs with it without "infecting" the resulting output with the compiler's GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html
- jcranmer 7y ago
  That's more to deal with the fact that compilers insert calls to various support routines to implement certain functionality--for example, there are division routines to support architectures without a division operator. It's not currently understood that the result of compiling code implies a claim to copyright or derivative works of any resulting compiler output, which is GP's point. Actually, there's an argument that, even if GCC and its support libraries did not have the compiler exception clause, then there still would be no GPL "infection" of compiled code. License to use a software program implicitly carries with it a right to make any necessary copies that are functionally required, even if the copies would otherwise be infringing. So the compiler inserting copies of itself into your program would enable you to distribute those copies with your program without any further agreement (i.e., licenses) required, so long as you had legitimate license to the compiler itself.

I’m not sure that’s entirely analogous. Open source and commercially licensed compilers would have licensing agreements governing how they can be used. But I imagine if a person made their own compiler, and didn’t license it to anybody, but somebody somehow gained access to it and used it to compile their code, that the resulting output would infact be infringing the IP rights of the compilers author. I’m sure you could also publicly release a compiler with a license that assigned copyright of the output to the compiler’s author (though I doubt you could convince anybody to use it).

burpsnard 7y ago
Famously, early pc assembler a86/d86 claimed to able to identify unlicenced used from byte-patterns http://eji.com/a86/ http://eji.com/a86/

yorwba 7y ago

GCC has a license exception specifically to allow compiling programs with it without "infecting" the resulting output with the compiler's GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html

jcranmer 7y ago
That's more to deal with the fact that compilers insert calls to various support routines to implement certain functionality--for example, there are division routines to support architectures without a division operator. It's not currently understood that the result of compiling code implies a claim to copyright or derivative works of any resulting compiler output, which is GP's point. Actually, there's an argument that, even if GCC and its support libraries did not have the compiler exception clause, then there still would be no GPL "infection" of compiled code. License to use a software program implicitly carries with it a right to make any necessary copies that are functionally required, even if the copies would otherwise be infringing. So the compiler inserting copies of itself into your program would enable you to distribute those copies with your program without any further agreement (i.e., licenses) required, so long as you had legitimate license to the compiler itself.