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: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>
- Cc: "'Robert Dewar'" <dewar at gnat dot com>, "'Per Bothner'" <per at bothner dot com>, aaronraolete36 at aaronwl dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:01:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries
- References: <NUTMEGgFuoe5cizlK4n000004aa@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
On Jun 21, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
I'd very strongly recommend against it, since really there's no
ambiguity
in the language at all: static linking is covered by the exception,
dynamic
linking isn't.
I think this was a small oversight in migrating to shared libraries. I
think it should just be `fixed' in the exception clause. Someone would
have to propose that to the SC, the SC would have to sign off on the
concept and then someone would have to ask the FSF for their blessing.
The reasoning is simple, the exception exists so that people can use
gcc in the real world and not be obligated into the various
requirements of the GPL. That was `broken' when non-gcc bearing
systems use gcc to compile applications. That is a regression. The
fix is obvious.
We can note that on gcc bearing systems, libgcc.so is already present,
and on those OSes, the OS vendor already provides the source to the
library, thus relieving application providers from having to worry
about the issue.
I think this can be summed up as a corner case of dll hell.