This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: license info in libstdc++ README
- From: David Turner <novalis at fsf dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:27:40 -0500
- Subject: Re: license info in libstdc++ README
- References: <1104958782.17404.5.camel@banks> <email@example.com>
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 22:34 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Turner:
> > --- libstdc++-v3/README.orig Wed Jan 5 13:36:07 2005
> > +++ libstdc++-v3/README Wed Jan 5 13:36:20 2005
> > @@ -94,3 +94,15 @@
> > In files throughout the system, lines marked with an "XXX" indicate
> > a bug or incompletely-implemented feature. Lines marked "XXX MT"
> > indicate a place that may require attention for multi-thread safety.
> > +
> > +libstdc++ itself is licensed under the terms of the GPL with the
> > +following exception, which permits ordinary use of libstdc++ in
> > +proprietary software:
> > + As a special exception, if you link this library with files
> > + compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does
> > + not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
> > + Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
> > + other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
> > + General Public License.
> > +
> > +The testcases are under the plain GPL.
> Is this really true? The actual exception is a bit broader:
> // As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
> // library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate
> // templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile
> // this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
> // file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
> // the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however
> // invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by
> // the GNU General Public License.
Oh, mine was the old libio exception. I don't know where libio went
inside the gcc tree, but perhaps something analagous should be there,
while your corrected text should be in the README.
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF