Re:Obviously you are not a GPL expert (Score 1)

In the words of my old IP law lecturer: "your lawyers are stupids!"

Output of a compiler is not a derivative work of that compiler. Not not not. You must understand how that word is used within the context of the Copyright Act. But first, some definitions...

Copyright is a bundle of rights. The right to reproduce (copy). The right to translate. The right to hire. The right to produce a derivative work. Remember that copyright for literary works was intended to cover literature -- not source code. Coverage for computer code as literary works is legal hacking of the copyright act.

An example of a derivative work is a screenplay derived from a novel. Or a second edition derived from a first. You must start with the original work and derive from there. Note that compiler output does not fit this model at all. The lawyers who said otherwise were either poorly informed about the law, compilers, or both.

It's also important to remember that the Borland licence agreement was drafted at a time when some of these issues were being seriously debated. For some there is still uncertainty and, in any event, you can often over-ride provisions of an act with contract terms (unless that legislation explicity prevents this). So, as awlays, RTFL (read the friendly licence).

"So I think you will find that I have a bit more knowledge in this area"

But your knowledge is based on error!