On Sep 25, 8:22 pm, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > You don't have to say anything at all about your compiler.
>
> Do so!
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
<begin excerpts>
Section 1, Paragraph 3-5:
The =93System Libraries=94 of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
=93Major Component=94, in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
The =93Corresponding Source=94 for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.
The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can
regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
Section 6, paragraph 3:
A separable ****tion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.
<end excerpts>
Boiled down, it appears that an arbitrary developer:
[a] needs to be able to provide source code for his modifications, and
source code or a link to source code for a FOSS product, as one might
expect for the GPL, upon request.
[b] does NOT need to provide any information/media/software regarding
his compilation environment beyond that
needed for a runnable distribution of any derived/compiled product,
though it may need to identify
the proper environment (e.g., icc on an x86).
See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
.
As an aside, I would hope that the building of the FOSS code would be
possible using GNU products such as GCC, and certainly if the product
does not build, one can attempt modification and rerelease back
upstream.
Disclaimer: IANAL, nor am I affiliated with GNU.
[snipped]
|
