Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:15:58 -0500
>> From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist at gmail.com>
>> Sender: owner-freebsd-current at freebsd.org
>>
>>> As for Michel's point that the results of the compilation are not
>>> covered by GPL - this seems to be stated explicitly in the GPLv3 license.
>> Which is my question.  Why do we need update the compiler when the
>> license shouldn't matter?
>> Has anyone asked the FSF about this issue anyway?  Does the FSF claim
>> that the output of the compiler becomes "free" software?
> 
> Smells like FUD to me. In all of my reading, I have never seen such a
> claim. There may be some GPLv3 issues, but I seriously doubt this is
> one.

I just wanted to clarify (because my post is a bit ambiguous) - I was 
trying to say that the GPLv3 seems to be explicitly saying that the 
output of the compilation is NOT covered by GPL:

To quote (** added):

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of 
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated 
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited 
permission to run the unmodified Program. **The output from running a 
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its 
content, constitutes a covered work.** This License acknowledges your 
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.