This project is read-only.

Is output under GPL too?

Jul 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM

" The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."


"In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?
Only when the program copies part of itself into the output."

I have not analyzed the source of this program and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this applies here (especially for things like anti-*, control flow, proxy etc). Even if it is not  now, it may change in future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this was intention (as there is no sense to obfuscate gpl code - since you have to provide it in normal form anyway).

Could you consider adding explicit exclusion clause (aka bison, gcc), to remove possible ambiguity?

Best regards and thank you for great work

Jul 12, 2011 at 4:51 AM


"Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input."

I think that it should be okay to license the output in any license.

Jul 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

but gcc has special exception:  gcc-exception (see also libstdc++ license) , bison too: Conditions.

and this tool does not, so for me this answer from GPL FAQ does not apply the same way here.

(and even you don''t seem to be 100% sure)


Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I'm not a lawyer too so it may not be prefect...

Jul 14, 2011 at 8:25 PM

It sounds good enough for me. Thank you :)