This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: static libgcc license?
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: John Love-Jensen <eljay at adobe dot com>, aspirin at ntlworld dot com, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:23:48 -0600
- Subject: Re: static libgcc license?
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <email@example.com>, 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