This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>,aaronraolete36 at aaronwl dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:05:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries
- References: <20040621172601.2BDD6F29FF@nile.gnat.com> <40D72072.email@example.com>
On Jun 21, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
I don't see any validity to this argument whatever.
However, when you distribute the libraries as DLLs, my reading of
the license in libgcc2.c is that you need to distribute source for
the DLLs, but not source for any application that uses them.
However, that's a gray area: you might argue that an installation
program that installs both the libries and an executable that uses
the libraries is "linked".
Which do you disagree with: the first sentence or the second?
Assuming it's the second: I agree it's a stretch, but it depends
on the meaning of "linking". The intent is to refer to traditional
linking as we're used to thinking of it, but one might argue that
just an implemention technique. However, I would not recommend
making decisons based on this interpretation.
Free non-"legal advice" (i don't take the bar for another month):
Any time you have to say "one might argue", it means you are going to
court, which means don't do it in the first place :).