This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LPGL (was "GCC2 merging")
- To: james at westongold dot com (James Mansion), egcs at cygnus dot com, gcc2 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: LPGL (was "GCC2 merging")
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:45:02 -0700
- References: <32BABEF63EAED111B2C5204C4F4F50201800.cygnus.egcs@WGP01>
>>>>> James Mansion <james@westongold.com> writes:
> (yeah - and can we *please* review the LGPL? It does not seem to
> make any practical sense for template systems or C++ inlines in
> general.)
I agree completely. The LGPL says that an object file that uses large
inlines (or, presumably, templates) must be distributed under the terms of
Section 6, which says that you must
a) Accompany the work with ... the complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood
that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
But if the substance of the library is in the form of inlines or templates,
this doesn't make any sense, as there isn't anything to link against; it's
all emitted into the object code along with the library user's code.
I would like to see a variant of the LGPL which does not place any
requirements on a "work that uses the Library". I want to protect the
library itself, but have the legal requirements on a program that uses the
library be the same as on a program that is compiled with gcc; namely,
none. This is necessary for the C++ standard library, to make g++ a viable
alternative to proprietary compilers. This is currently achieved by using
the libgcc exception to the GPL, but I would rather have an LGPL-based
license so that users are not required to use gcc.
This is more than a theoretical issue because SGI would like to cooperate
with us on developing the C++ standard library, and the current license
prevents them from using our code with their compiler. Their code,
meanwhile is under an X-style license, which does not protect it from
hoarders. I would like to find a middle ground acceptable to both groups.
Jason