This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Libgcc and its license


On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:

> On 10/10/2012 10:48 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Gabor Loki wrote:
> > 
> > > 2) repeat all the compilation commands related to the previous list in
> > > the proper environment. The only thing which I have added to the
> > > compilation command is an extra "-E" option to preprocess every sources.
> > > 3) create a unique list of all source and header files from the
> > > preprocessed files.
> > > 4) at final all source, header and generated files are checked for their
> > > licenses.
> > 
> > The fact that a header is read by the compiler at some point in generating
> > a .o file does not necessarily mean that object file is a work based on
> > that header; that is a legal question depending on how the object code
> > relates to that header.
> 
> Well legally the status of a file is not in anyway affected by what
> the header of the file says, but we should indeed try to make sure
> that all headers properly reflect the intent.

I'm not talking about the relation between the headings textually located 
in a source file and the license of that source file.  I'm talking about 
the relation between the license of a .o file and the license of .h files 
#included at several levels of indirection from the .c source that was 
compiled to that .o file (in particular, headers included within tm.h, but 
most or all of the content of which is irrelevant for code being built for 
the target).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]