Does tradeleft exist to strengthen libre compiler output? Or at all?

https://wiki.osdev.org/Libgcc#What_is_the_libgcc_license?

Shows in part

The libgcc library is licensed under the GNU GPL plus the GCC Runtime Library Exception (see COPYING.RUNTIME in your GCC source tree). This roughly means that you are allowed to link in libgcc into your software even if it would normally violate the GNU GPL, as long as you used a non-proprietary version of GCC. This is nothing unusual, such licensed code is linked into everything GCC creates, especially user-space programs and you can legally compile and distribute proprietary programs with GCC because of the runtime library exception.

Does anyone know if there any compiler that makes me use GPL3+ or better yet AGPL3+ for anything/everything that is compiled with it?

Or if there is any language to force GPL3+ or better yet AGPL3+ use?

That way maybe I could use that compiler/language to make sure all things in any way connected/linked/plug_in/calls/or_any_other_way also must be under the libre license GPL3+ or better yet AGPL3+

Or is it not possible to make a libre compiler that makes it so that most/all of a computer must contain libre software/firmware if any of those parts that are built with that compiler?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

shows in part

However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.
If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.

So some things needed to build/run only under libre_strong_copyleft could help freedom.

If a copyright based license can not make copyleft programs in all compiler output, maybe a GNU/FSF trademark policy (if there is one) in all/most libre programs could help, that way programs could be large or small and still be needed to be libre because of any GNU/FSF trademark policy, if one exists.

Trademarks and terms for those trademarks can be added to the GPL3 per GNU GPL Section 7.

So maybe if this GNU/FSF trademark (if there is one) is in a program's code or name all the code must have all 4 freedoms, if a libre "trade-left" exists.

Than users could know anything with GNU/FSF/that_type_of_trademark in its name or code is fully libre software without needing to check if there are more terms added. Even if just an add on.

A little like the FSF "Respects Your Freedom Certification" program.
https://ryf.fsf.org/

Or the list at https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

So instead of trademarks blocking some of the four freedoms unless those are removed like how it is done in micropolis, as there is the trademarked image for SimCity TM in "micropolis-activity-0.0.20071228/images/tiles-150.xpm"

A GNU/FSF trademark(s) could be used to make it so libre programs stay libre. Though that would likely just be in programs made by GNU/FSF, but maybe a "trade-left" could be granted to let others use the trade-left trademark as well.

Though (the SimCity TM) may just be a small change that is needed in micropolis to let me remove other things before distributing it.

If I do not wish to have the large fantasy "zilla-like" creature attacking a city, I would only have to edit out that and the trademarked SimCity image of the company named Electronic Arts. I did not check if there are more files/trademarks.

Maybe files tiles-153.xpm tiles-155.xpm tiles-156.xpm tilesbw.xpm tilessm.xpm
could have some trademark, but it still would not be much to change.

I have seen other non-trademarked programs that I would wish to edit out more things, so this one having me edit a little more is not that much.

Though a "trade-left trademark" like copyleft may not be able to be mixed in programs with a restrictive trademark in them, as the additional terms would likely contradict each other.

But most trademark policies likely would contradict each other, so there would not likely be much (if any) loss as programs that already have restrictive trademarks are not likely trademarked by GNU/FSF.

Is there any list of trademarks that can show if any "trade-left/trade-share-alike" exist or do only lax trademark and restrictive trademark terms exist?

ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 for micropolis are

No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT
give you any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any
other Electronic Arts trademark. You may not distribute any
modification of this program using the trademark SimCity or claim any
affliation or association with Electronic Arts Inc. or its employees.

Any propagation or conveyance of this program must include this
copyright notice and these terms.

If you convey this program (or any modifications of it) and assume
contractual liability for the program to recipients of it, you agree
to indemnify Electronic Arts for any liability that those contractual
assumptions impose on Electronic Arts.

You may not misrepresent the origins of this program; modified
versions of the program must be marked as such and not identified as
the original program.

This disclaimer supplements the one included in the General Public
License. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THIS
PROGRAM IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITH ALL FAULTS, WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, AND YOUR USE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE ENTIRE RISK OF
SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE RESIDES WITH YOU. ELECTRONIC ARTS
DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY
RIGHTS, AND WARRANTIES (IF ANY) ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING,
USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. ELECTRONIC ARTS DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST
INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROGRAM; THAT THE PROGRAM WILL
MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; THAT OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BE COMPATIBLE
WITH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE OR THAT ANY ERRORS IN THE PROGRAM WILL BE
CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN ADVICE PROVIDED BY ELECTRONIC ARTS OR
ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SOME
JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF OR LIMITATIONS ON IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OR THE LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A
CONSUMER, SO SOME OR ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS MAY
NOT APPLY TO YOU.

These additional terms are in the README file.

https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

shows

Trademarks are associated with some software. For example, the name of a program may be trademarked, or its interface may display a trademarked logo. Often, the use of these marks will be controlled in some way; in particular, developers are commonly asked to remove references to the trademark from the software when they modify it.

In extreme cases, these restrictions may effectively render the program nonfree. It is unfair for someone to ask you to remove a trademark from modified code if that trademark is scattered all throughout the original source. As long as the practical requirements are reasonable, however, free system distributions may include these programs, either with or without the trademarks.

Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It is not a problem if modification requires removal of these trademarks, as long as they can readily be removed without losing functionality.

However, it is unacceptable to use trademarks to restrict verbatim copying and redistribution of the whole distribution, or any part.

Though I do not know if any libre trademarks could be controlled in some way to ask by license to remove all libre trademarks if a non-free addon/part was added or connected so users could know it was a fully libre program.

I also do not know a guide to find if the "practical requirements are reasonable" or how many trademarks can be in a distro and still count as a reasonable number of trademarks.

Though 1 trademarked image file in micropolis, maybe some more, plus not using the name of Electronic Arts, is not that many, and I do not think dependencies to compile it (micropolis) have any trademarks, if those would even count as more trademarks compilled into 1 program.

Or maybe a contract list showing some contracts that the signers of the contract can agree to only distribute libre things, maybe even giving the option to join the contract for downstream users, if they wish to. If those type of contracts exist.

Maybe others will also have other/better ideas about strengthening the libre in libre software than just tradelefts (if that can be done) compiler output, and libra contracts, so if anyone has other ideas to help this may be a place to post more strong pro libre software ideas.