This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: static libgcc license?
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: John Love-Jensen <eljay at adobe dot com>
- Cc: <aspirin at ntlworld dot com>, <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 15 Jul 2003 00:25:37 -0300
- Subject: Re: static libgcc license?
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <BB382B2C.9AA1%eljay@adobe.com>
#include <IANAL/disclaimer.h>
On Jul 14, 2003, John Love-Jensen <eljay@adobe.com> wrote:
>> We're wishing to simply provide a binary which is statically linked
>> with libgcc, which was the main precept given in my original
>> question.
> The main answer to the main precept is: yes, you can do that.
>> If libgcc is vanilla GPL...
> The libgcc is not GPL, it is LGPL.
This is not correct. libgcc's license GPL with the run-time
exception, namely:
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link
the compiled version of this file into combinations with other
programs, and to distribute those combinations without any
restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public
License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they
cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked
into a combine executable.)
>> It is NOT clear to me what the license of libgcc is, particularly the one
>> linked by GCC 3.1.1 before additional exemptions went in.
> The libgcc is LGPL.
I don't know where you got this idea from. It was never meant to be.
IIRC, at some point we noticed some libgcc files were missing the
run-time exception, and this mistake was corrected in the earliest
release that followed. If you're overly paranoid, you might consider
libgcc as pure-GPL for this reason, and prefer to use a newer libgcc
instead. If you trust the FSF to not sue over an unintentional
licensing mistake, you may use the earlier version.
When in doubt about licensing issues, write to the FSF. They might
very well be willing to explicitly arrange a ``special'' license
arrangement of the earlier libgcc with you, that matches the original
intent of libgcc's being released under GPL + run-time exception.
IANAL, and my recollection does not necessarily match the facts.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer