This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries
- From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: aaronraolete36 at aaronwl dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:24:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries
- References: <20040620212429.594B6F29C5@nile.gnat.com>
Robert Dewar wrote:
The libgcc wording may be construed to mean that combination with some
other requirement, or that static linking is a requirement.
This is a misreading (a serious one)
Just think about the intention, the idea is that the recipient
of the softeware must be able to modify it. If you distribute a DLL containing GPL'ed
code the recipient must be able to modify that code and recreate the DLL.
But we're not talking about GPL'd code - we're talking about
GPL-with-exception.
If you statically link libgcc and/or libstdc++ with an application to
form an executable, there is no source distribution requirement. At
least that is my reading of the license.
However, when you distribute the libraries as DLLs, my reading of
the license in libgcc2.c is that you need to distribute source for
the DLLs, but not source for any application that uses them.
However, that's a gray area: you might argue that an installation
program that installs both the libries and an executable that uses
the libraries is "linked".
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/