This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New GCC Runtime Library Exception
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, "gcc\ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:54:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: New GCC Runtime Library Exception
- References: <E1LRsu8-0002FN-4G@fencepost.gnu.org> <871vuo1nhx.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20090127221618.GE27001@synopsys.com> <87fxj29ub5.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <m3vdry2lyd.fsf@google.com> <87eiym85ty.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <m3r62m14mn.fsf@google.com>
* Ian Lance Taylor:
>>> Your argument here seems to be that linking against libgcc makes a
>>> program be covered by the definition of "GCC" in the runtime library
>>> license.
>>
>> Right. Why do you think this would not be the case? libgcc is part
>> of GCC, so a program linking to libgcc is a derivative work of libgcc,
>> and therefore GCC. That's precisely why we need an exception in the
>> first place because this outcome is not desired (a free operating
>> system could not distribute compiled binaries of C++ programs using
>> OpenSSL, for instance--in contrast to proprietary operating systems,
>> the system library exception cannot be used).
>
> That is the cycle which the runtime library license is intended to
> break, so now I'm just confused.
For the self-hosting compiler linking against libgcc, the exception
basically says that the compiler qualifies for the linking exception
if it qualifies for the linking exception. I think this *is*
confusing, and I don't know what it means for the status of the
compiler (e.g., if a hypothetical QPL-licensed ocamlopt.opt compiler
linking against libgcc would be legal to redistribute or not).