gnupic: gputils license query
Subject:
Re: gputils license query
From:
"Mark J. Dulcey" ####@####.####
Date:
17 Jan 2005 01:27:25 +0000
Message-Id: <41EB1466.40208@buttery.org>
David McNab wrote:
> I'm thinking of the assembler statements generated by gpal in response
> to users' gpal input files.
>
> For instance, if a line of user code performs a 32-bit division, then
> gpal has to crank out a wad of 'canned' assembler statements for
> performing that division.
>
> So in the case of gpal, are such machine-generated assembler statements
> covered by the GPL? Should gpal's licensing contain clauses to
> explicitly relax the GPL on such machine-generated code?
That's what a compiler does; no GPL problems there. The fact that the
compiler's output is an assembler file (which is then fed into an
assembler) rather than actual object code is irrelevant; many compilers
over the years have done that. Even GCC can output an assembler file,
though people don't usually bother.
If it put out sequences for functions as well as for operators, it might
be verging into the territory of having a runtime library embedded in
the compiler, and bring up license issues.
