This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Need Clarification about the Documentation License

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: me22 <me22 dot ca at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:55:59 +0100
Subject: Re: Need Clarification about the Documentation License
References: <4C339022.2010501@redhat.com> <AANLkTinqHMGS39V1PZBJu4l9Eoegehmk0LnXpmkAMeLD@mail.gmail.com>

On 15 July 2010 06:21, me22 wrote:
> On 6 July 2010 13:20, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>
>> If the binary is provided along with a plug-in as a data file (to avoid web
>> access), does the entire plug-in instantly inherit the GPL V3 license?
>>
>
> The mere fact that two things are distributed together does not make
> either a derivative work of the other. ?(If it did, most linux distros
> would be illegal.)

Obviously.  But Jeff isn't just talking about two unrelated files
bundled into an aggregate, he's talking about object code produced
from GPL sources which is combined with other object code.

It's pretty much exactly the case described by
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins

The only reason that doesn't completely answer the question is that
libstdc++ has the runtime exception, which *might* apply to his
plugin.

References:
- Need Clarification about the Documentation License
  - From: Jeff Johnston
- Re: Need Clarification about the Documentation License
  - From: me22

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]