This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [gfortran] Change libgfortran license to GPL+exception
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Schlüter<tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>, GCC Fortran mailing list <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, law at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:33:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [gfortran] Change libgfortran license to GPL+exception
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, NL
- References: <7B3D6A4E-0F1F-11D9-8790-003065BDF310@apple.com>
Mike Stump wrote:
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.
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.
Thanks for this input - I'll discuss it with the Steering Committee. My
initial position was that LCPL was OK, but you convinced me to consider
GPL+exception closely.
Thanks,
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/