On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 09:28:31PM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: > But as I've said, if the compiler and developer tools are "freeware" > or not is irrelevant from the license point of view, in my > opinion. These are the same tools used to build all Mac OSX > applications; any legal restriction because a GPL interpretation > would mean that developing GPL applications for Mac OSX would be > forbidden as well.
Uh, no. They are so not-irrelevant that the GPL contains an explicit clause to handle this case, without which it would be very hard to write GPL applications on non-free platforms. In GPLv2 it's this: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." An application which relied on some proprietary compiler that was not covered by this clause would not be distributable under the GPL (which is fairly obvious, because otherwise it would be very easy to work around the GPL by putting all your proprietary changes into the compiler). _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
