Re: libstdc++ licensing

[linguist-gcc at rich-paul dot net]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, David Edelsohn wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out ... I did see the exception, but read it as
applying to free software libraries that depended on libstdc++, not executables
that depended on the file, when the file was used as part of an opensource
library ... but on re-reading it seems clear that the header is saying that
you can use the header, (as==>which is) part of a free software library,
without making the resulting executable free software.

It seems like a slightly tortured bit of prose, but is not nonsensical looked
at this way ... and it seemed to be nonsense to say that you could link a free
library to libstdc++ without making it free.


> 
> 	Okay, you're wrong.
> 
> 	Did you look at the source files which contain the following
> exception:
> 
> // As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
> // library without restriction.  Specifically, if other files instantiate
> // templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile
> // this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
> // file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
> // the GNU General Public License.  This exception does not however
> // invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by
> // the GNU General Public License.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> >>>>> linguist-gcc  writes:
> 
> L> I was having problems getting a simple IOStreams program to link (still am, but
> L> that doesn't matter until I get an answer to this) and I happened to notice
> L> that libstdc++ appears to be under the GPL, rather than the LGPL ... which
> L> implies to me, since libstdc++ is now the default c++ library for gcc, that any
> L> c++ program compiled with gcc must be free software.  Please tell me I'm wrong!