Re: New GCC Runtime Library Exception

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".

I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
directly by some microprocessors, is not a "compiler intermediate
representation."

I'm not super familiar with Java tools, but I think the rest of your
argument hinges on that.


> Other cases are rather unclear, too.  A hypothetical QPL-licensend
> compiler which links against libgcc (Objective Caml apparently
> doesn't) cannot produce an Eligible Compilation Process because it is
> a work based on GCC (thanks to libgcc), and not everything is
> GPL-licensed.  Interpreters capable of producing ELF binaries might
> also be affected by a similar issue.

Your argument here seems to be that linking against libgcc makes a
program be covered by the definition of "GCC" in the runtime library
license.  I don't think that argument is reasonable either on the text
or in the real world.  It would mean that every program compiled by
gcc is itself gcc.


> Call me paranoid, but this looks like yet another example where the
> Free Software Foundation tries to make things easy for proprietary
> software developers, and ends up leaving projects behind which use
> non-GPL free software licenses--whose status as free software licenses
> is acknowledged by the FSF.

While perhaps some wording needs to be changed, the intent of the
license is stated clearly.  Paranoia on this point is not appropriate.

Ian