As far as I understand, it is well accepted that, for programs that are licensed under the GPL, the output of a program does not necessarily have to follow the GPL. This is confirmed by the "Basic Permissions" section of the GPL version 3:
The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
However, is it the case that the only reason the GPL doesn't necessarily need to be followed for an output is because the GPL says so?
What I mean is: after reading the Mozilla Public License v2 today, it seems it doesn't say anything about outputs generated by the program. So let's say I have a compiler licensed under the MPL v2, and I use this compiler to generate some executable called A. Does A need to follow MPL v2 terms, since MPL v2 doesn't say it does not apply to outputs?
I'm using MPL v2 as an example, but this question could be applied to any software license. Am I always allowed to assume my output can follow a different license, or does it completely depend on the license of whatever generated it?