Re: GPL and GCC profiling

[Tobias Oberstein <tobias dot oberstein at gmx dot de>]

Ian,

> This is not true on most platforms.  On most platforms, the profiling
> library (e.g., -lpg and gcrt1.o) is part of the system.  The profiling

ah, ok. wasn't aware of that.

> library is never part of gcc.  gcc itself imposes no restrictions on
> code compiled with profiling.  Any such restrictions come from
> somewhere else.

but the profiling library has to be called and for that calls
there has to be code generated automatically isn't it? who
inserts that code? gcc? then what about the copyright of
those injected calls to an external (system provided, non-GPL'ed)
library? injecting a _single_ line of GPL'ed code would be
enough to trigger license terms proliferation or not?

> > or does it only mean i must release source if i distribute an
> > executable containing GCC profiling code? and what does
> > "distribute" then include?
>
> Correct.  The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute code.
> See the GPL FAQ:
>     http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

ok, should have read the complete FAQ;) guess you're referring
to http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution

now, from this i interpret: for a commercial software business to
contract an external independent freelancer to develop code
might expose the business to legal threats:

"In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is 
distribution."

that is, if the freelancer "distributes" an executable with profiling
embedded to the contracting body (for test reasons e.g.), that
would violate license terms at least for MinGW exposing the
business to legal threats. you already emphasized profiling license
terms are specific to MingGW, not GCC.

> Nobody understands all the legal implications, because some of them
> are unknown at this time.  That said, any competent IP lawyer should

guess this is very true and probably brings the whole issue to the
point. hold back your arms .. i'm not in the FUD game.

Cheers,
Tobias