[v3] Re: libstdc++ license

[Joe Buck]

> > > 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.