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]

Re: static libgcc license?

In message <>, Alexandre Oliva writ
 >I don't know where you got this idea from.  It was never meant to be.
 >IIRC, at some point we noticed some libgcc files were missing the
 >run-time exception, and this mistake was corrected in the earliest
 >release that followed.  If you're overly paranoid, you might consider
 >libgcc as pure-GPL for this reason, and prefer to use a newer libgcc
 >instead.  If you trust the FSF to not sue over an unintentional
 >licensing mistake, you may use the earlier version.
Also note the FSF has a statement on their website which touches on
this issue.  It states pretty clearly their intention is that using
tools such as GCC does not infect the resulting program with the GPL.

The intention for libgcc has always been GPL + exception clause.  There
were a couple places where the exception clause was missed and a couple
places where libgcc included .h files it should not have included.  But
the intention remains that the license for libgcc is GPL + exception


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