Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> > 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".
>
> I don't see any validity to this argument whatever.

Which do you disagree with: the first sentence or the second?

Assuming it's the second:  I agree it's a stretch, but it depends
on the meaning of "linking".  The intent is to refer to traditional
linking as we're used to thinking of it, but one might argue that
just an implemention technique.  However, I would not recommend
making decisons based on this interpretation.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/