This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compiling programs licensed under the GPL version 2 with GCC 4.4
* Robert Dewar:
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF policy. If I wanted
legal advice, I'd ask a lawyer, and rely on that advice (to the extent
that is possible), even if it is at odds with what the FSF or the GCC
developers presumably want (like an effective copyleft for GCC with
modules).
It seems to me that the new GCC run-time library license has the side
effect of forcing GPLed software to upgrade to GPL version 3 to remain
redistributable in compiled form. If this is not your intent (as GCC
developers), I think the Steering Committee should ask the FSF for
official clarification on this matter. I'd also like to know what we
should do with the Objective Caml compiler in Debian, by the way.
My main issue is that I don't see how, under the same set of policies,
it can be acceptable to link a GPLv2 program to GPLv3 system libraries
covered by the GCC library exception, but it's not okay to link
another GPLv2 program to Apache-2.0-licensed system libraries. Both
library licenses do not infect the program, and both licenses are
incompatible with the GPLv2 (according to the FSF). Or am I nuts and
this mismatch does not exist?
The problem with "go ask the FSF" is that they don't react in a
reasonable time frame (beyond an auto-ack from their trouble ticket
system).