This is the mail archive of the 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 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

Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   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]