Simple question

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Byron Blue:
>
>> This is the question:
>>  GCC uses the GNU license scheme. This operating system would be
>> embedding in our industrial computers and I do not (of course) want
>> the source code for our operating system to be open source - available
>> to our competitors. The GNU site is not quite clear in this area and
>> being new I would not want to "break the rules". Could I ask you for a
>> bit of clarification on this issue?
>
> Unless you take special precautions, GCC copies parts of itself into
> compiled executables.

This is false as stated.  It is true that GCC provides runtime
libraries, and that in some cases the linker (not part of GCC) will
combine portions of those runtime libraries with the compiled code to
produce the final executable.

> The compiled executables must therefore be
> licensed in a way that is compatible with the GPL.

This is completely false.

> However, there is
> an exception for many parts which can be copied in this way.

Here you seem to be talking about the runtime libraries.  All parts of
the runtime libraries have the exception, not "many parts."

> This
> exception comes with a set of complex conditions:
>
>   <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html>

As you can see by reading that page, the conditions are not complex.
If you compile your code with GCC, there are no restrictions on your
use of the runtime libraries.  It's true that there are certain
complex mechanisms you can use that will cause your use of the runtime
libraries to be restricted.  However, the license is clear that
ordinary compilation with GCC does not lead to any restrictions.

> Whether these exceptions apply in your case is hard to tell.  It is
> unlikely that professional legal advice could give you a definitive
> answer, either.

In fact an ordinary reading of the license will be entirely
sufficient.  Of course consulting a lawyer is never a bad idea when
you are concerned about liability issues.  But I would recommend
trying to find one already familiar with the legal issues surrounding
free software, so you don't have to fund his or her education.

> I'll ask the FSF to update the link Ian posted.

The link I posted is entirely accurate and there is no need to change it.

Ian