This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license
- To: bkoz at redhat dot com (Benjamin Kosnik)
- Subject: Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: jason_merrill at redhat dot com (Jason Merrill), pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com (Phil Edwards), mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org), libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org (libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org)
> > > Many of the files were already under SGI's and HP's copyright. Can't
> > > change those.
> >
> > Well, we can. The HP/SGI license does not preclude us from putting our
> > modified versions under the GPL any more than it precludes people from
> > using the STL in non-free code.
ben writes:
> I had no idea. So, what should be done? If possible, it would be nice to
> have the library under one license. Would the STL bits then be both BSD
> and Runtime GPL'd? I'm confused.
The STL license isn't "BSD" exactly, but it's non-copyleft. Yes,
extensions could be GPLed. But RMS has said that this is against FSF
policy (to GPL changes to a non-copyleft piece of software that is also
extended by others) because it causes a fork; that is, he'd rather
cooperate with non-copyleft developers when working on existing code.