cp/inc licensing

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:40:46 +0200
> From: Jamie Lokier <jamie.lokier@cern.ch>

> Looking similar to libgcc so far.

> But to restrict someone from distributing a C++ shared library that
> merely uses libstdc++ without source, while permitting the same
> distribution as an executable -- that seems strange.

Yes, I agree.  libgcc has the same problem, and if we move over to
shared libgcc by default, more and more people will want to distribute
a libgcc.so, but now they will have new legal problems that they never
had with a static libgcc, seems unwise to do this, without clarifying
the two licenses to allow this.  I think if we add the phrase library
or executable, this can solve this issue.