I'm trying to establish when use of an "open" compiler (or interpreter or
....) will or will not equally liberate the code it produces.

While this subject is no doubt very well covered in many places I've not
yet found a moderately definitive paragraph-or-few summary that I can
depend on.

There are many versions of "free" software - GNU, FOSs, FLOSS copy left,
public domain ...

A read through one of Wikipedia's offerings left me more uncertain than
when I started.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Controversy

I'll use the term "XXX" here and I'd be pleased for anyone to comment on
any version of "free" / open / ...  and its relevance to my question as
they see fit.

Question:

I use an XXX licenced "free" compiler to produce a target 'program'.
Under what circumstances does my target program become equally "free"?

How do various 'free' licences affect this?

How dos using an interpreter alter things (if at all)?

_________

Example:

How is Python affected by this?
(FOSS & interpreted so may be a good extreme example?)

_________

Misc thunks:

I have seen it suggested that where code includes library code from an XXX
compiler that that renders the whole program as XXX licenced except for
modules which are compiled independently and linked to as part of the
target program.

I understand that if I use an XXX compiler and include NO library code then
my program will not be XXX licenced BUT it is liable to be 'rather hard' to
avoid such code being included.

Does or may use of a wholly interpretive language alter anything?

Tokenisation exterior to target and ...?

.....?


        R
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.