This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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]

static libgcc license?


Hi there!

I've been running around various mailing list archives for a
while and I can't see a definative answer, just assumptions
on either side.

The question is this: Can we statically link libgcc.a into
our non-[L]GPL C application and distribute the binary without
GPL-infecting it?

Our compiler is GCC 3.1.1.  I've seen some exemptions go into the
license of the libgcc in 3.2 to allow this, but I don't think these
exemptions were 'backported' to 3.1.

I'm really interested in an official legal position on this.

(Using the dynamic libgcc_s.so is not out of the question, but
external dependancies can be a genuine compatability problem
(libgcc amongst them, from googling around) and we'd like to
minimise them.  We're not shipping libs that care about the
things that a dynamic libgcc abstracts away, so a dynamic libgcc
is more of a liability than a benefit here.)

One of our targets is win32, where (AFAIK) libgcc is static
anyway...

Regards,
--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   adam@gimp.org   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for
it.i  Tell them something new and they will hate you for it."


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