Licensing questions. About compiling.

[h2o]

I've read the Code::Blocks license a couple of time, and it may just be be and my smartness going down the gutter, but I have one question about the licensing that follows with CB.

I understand that it's the GNU License, but what I'm in doubt about, is the fact if I'm allowed to compile stuff with CB (MinGW), and then not having to release my program as GNU License / Open source itself, or is this completely required?

Thanks in advantage for taking the time to answer to this question.

Andreas

[odubtaig]

Unless you're somehow using code from the C::B project itself this is most definitely not a problem as you're only using the compiled program, not using it's code in your program. Look up 'GCC classpath exception' or read http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html.

In short, no, you don't have to open source any code if you're using MinGW and C::B.

[h2o]

Thanks for your answer, it's very helpful.

I understand that I don't have to publish the source code, and here comes my second question then:
Can C::B/MinGW be used for commercial use, or is there special fees, buying, etc. associated with doing commercial projects through the IDE, rather than using MS-VS for example (which I, quite honestly, would prefer to stay away from).

[thomas]

As long as yout use them for programming/compiling your commercial applications, this does not matter, as stated above. Only if you take parts of either project for your own, or if you distribute a modified version of either, you are caught by the respective license.

The only notable case where this can happen to you if you "only use" the products "the normaly way" is if you compile with profiling information. But then again, nobody would probably want to distribute an executable with profiling information anyway, so it should not be a problem.

[CuteAlien]

The only notable case where this can happen to you if you "only use" the products "the normaly way" is if you compile with profiling information. But then again, nobody would probably want to distribute an executable with profiling information anyway, so it should not be a problem.

Wow, I never heard of that one, nice trap. Actually I have often distributed binaries with some profiling information to find problems on customer PC's, but lucky me - it was using my own profiling code. Still that really was pure luck, depending on the situation I would so far have used -pg without a second thought, I never expected that a compileflag would change the license of my application!

[h2o]

Thanks for the answers, they've pretty much helped me understanding the license of CB.

And thanks for the software!