Mon May 11 13:57:48 GMT 2020
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jonathan Wakely <email@example.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 11. Mai 2020 13:58
> An: Keil, Jochen (SE T SO PE T 1 2) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com
> Betreff: Re: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:58, Keil, Jochen via Gcc-help
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > In our team we are employing GCC for embedded products which require
> statically linked binaries. Our own code is proprietary, hence we would like to
> make use of the GPL-3.0+ Runtime Exception. We do not modify the GCC nor
> use Plugins to modify intermediate code, therefore I think we are allowed to
> link our object code statically with libgcc without releasing our proprietary
> source code.
> > However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the files
> in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing terms of GPL-
> 3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it still valid to use
> those libraries with statically linked proprietary code?
> As Florian said, you should ask your lawyers for legal advice. Are you
> even linking to libcc1 and libcpp though? If you're not linking to
> them, their license doesn't affect your code.
I just read Richard Sandiford's mail which helps to further clarify the question. Thank you to all who replied and helped me in this regard!
I would also like to apologize that I forgot to add a proper subject. That's usually not the case, but this one slipped.
Thank you again and best wishes,
More information about the Gcc-help