Re: [gfortran] Change libgfortran license to GPL+exception

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Saturday, September 18, 2004, at 05:37  AM, Toon Moene wrote:
> I don't know why GPL+exception would be preferred - I thought that was 
> only necessary for C++ libraries, where you include real code from the 
> libraries in the form of template definitions.
>
> I think we can confine ourselves to the LGPL.

libgcc style (GPL+exception) is preferred for default/standard language 
runtime libraries installed with gcc.  This maintains the status quo 
and simplifies usage of the compiler by commercial interests, thus 
encouraging gcc's use and applicability and reduces unintended 
consequences and thorny copyright problems.  For example, we don't want 
to require all plugin vendors to have to ship gcc source, just because 
they statically link against a runtime library, nor is it preferable to 
dictate the language they can write in (you can use C++ but not 
fortran).

For non-standard, non-default libraries, the status quo is not 
libgcc+exception, but rather was LGPL last I looked.  I don't know if 
that is still the preferred method.

The problem happens when people reuse code from other libraries that 
are LGPL protected for use in standard runtime libraries for the 
compiler.  This requires that the FSF sign off on all such motion (last 
I knew).  This unfortunate, but, just part of our job.


I think using LGPL for default runtime libraries for fortran would be 
wrong.  I think this issue should be sorted out and fixed before 4.0.0 
is released.  Having said that, I don't think it would be the end of 
the world if 4.0.0 shipped that way.