Re: cp/inc licensing

[Jamie Lokier <jamie dot lokier at cern dot ch>]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> // Copyright (C) 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

... followed by GPL v2 or later.

> // As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
> // library without restriction.  Specifically,

Looking similar to libgcc so far.

> // 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.

That says I can compile this file and link it with non-GPL executable
program, and the resulting program is not covered by the GPL.  There are
no restrictions on the license of the non-GPL code.

Here you're granted the freedom to make any old thing using libstdc++ v3
and keep the source to yourself -- provided your thing is an executable.

I have a question: does "executable" mean the exception does not apply
to shared libraries?  Does this mean I have to distribute source to any
C++ shared library that was built using inline functions from libstdc++
v3, but I don't have to distribute source if I make my library an
executable?

Is the intent of "executable" that someone cannot make a new shared
library which is basically a modified libstdc++ and distribute that
without source?  If so, that is reasonable.

But to restrict someone from distributing a C++ shared library that
merely uses libstdc++ without source, while permitting the same
distribution as an executable -- that seems strange.

I would appreciate a clarification of the intent.

thanks,
-- Jamie