The mere use of a GPL tool puts you under no obligation
whatsoever. The GPL covers distribution only. Thus you could
use gcc (GPL) to build what you like, and release it under
whatever terms you like. You could use lpr under Linux
without all of your printouts becoming GPL licensed.
Distribution or incorporation of GPL code requires acceptance
of the GPL conditions, which generally requires that your code
be released under the same terms. Thus, if you took the gcc
source, modified it, and sold the compiler executable as your
own, you need to provide the source (the GPL specifies
acceptable ways to do this). The same if you borrowed a
few routines from gcc and put them in your code.
In short, using a GPL tool doesn't require you to relicense
your code. Incorporating code from a tool, a GPL library, or
Oh, and Microsoft are hardly an unbiased party re the GPL.
I'd be very wary of what "someone from m$" says, much as
you should question the statements of anyone who has an
interest in the results.
Have a close read of the GPL some time when you have the
chance. Whilst not trivial it is pretty light for
lawyer-speak and spells things out fairly clearly.
> AFAIK, somebody from m$ thinks that GPL is *viral*. I somewhat agree with this
> idea, in the sense that if you use GPL'ed software to produce your software,
> you will have to GPL it. And thus, anyone who creates further work based on
> your software still need to GPL his/her work, and so on...