[e12e]

Nothing wrong with BSD - but as for a GPL compiler with a run-time, you could also look at the GCC/GNU libc licensing (GPL/LGPG). I do think it's important people are aware that GPL on things with a run-time should probably have an exception/use something like the LGPL - as you generally don't want "documents"/artifacts produced with a tool, to forcefully inherit the license of the tool used for creating them (eg: You don't want the word processor to force a license on documents produced, or the drawing application apply license to images - and the same goes for programming languages, IMNHO).

On another note, I'm not sure it would be quite possible to stretch "copyleft" that far legally anyway - but that's another discussion - and at ending up with an invalid license isn't really any good either, as that would leave you with just copyright and no license grant - making the tool illegal to copy/distribute...

[dkersten]

LGPL isn't enough for a runtime unless your entire runtime is dynamically linked. Either GPL or LGPL with runtime exception works fine though (that's what libc and others have, I believe).

That is, they added an exception saying that if you use it in a certain way (unmodified, runtime for compiled code), then it's exempt from many of the GPL's clauses. Used in any other way, however, and you must comply with the (L)GPL