This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- To: sb at metis dot no
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 00:10:08 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000425235511A.mitchell@codesourcery.com><200004260820.KAA15228@hwiw01.hyperwave.com><20000427172937.I570@perlsupport.com><200004281253.OAA20424@hwiw01.hyperwave.com><20000428114510.B584@perlsupport.com> <whsnw2a4tn.fsf@viffer.metis.no>
> Doing that is easy technically, but I'm not sure about the legal
> implications. Does distributing a libstdc++.so require me to
> distribute the source for that .so and the compiler it was built with?
I think that would not change anything in the licensing. You are never
required to provide source for the compiler, unless you distribute
binaries of the compiler. As for libstdc++, you have the exception
# As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled
# with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does not cause
# the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
# License. This exception does not however invalidate any other
# reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General
# Public License.
I don't know whether this requires you to offer sources to libstdc++
or not, but IMO it would be irrelevant whether libstdc++ is linked
statically, shipped as a shared library, or expect to exist on the
target system as a shared library.
Regards,
Martin