This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cp/inc licensing
- To: bkoz at cygnus dot com, jamie dot lokier at cern dot ch
- Subject: Re: cp/inc licensing
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:40:46 +0200
> From: Jamie Lokier <jamie.lokier@cern.ch>
> Looking similar to libgcc so far.
> 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.
Yes, I agree. libgcc has the same problem, and if we move over to
shared libgcc by default, more and more people will want to distribute
a libgcc.so, but now they will have new legal problems that they never
had with a static libgcc, seems unwise to do this, without clarifying
the two licenses to allow this. I think if we add the phrase library
or executable, this can solve this issue.