Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries

[Aaron W. LaFramboise]

Robert Dewar wrote:
>>The libgcc wording may be construed to mean that combination with some 
>>other requirement, or that static linking is a requirement.
> 
> 
> This is a misreading (a serious one)
> 
> Just think about the intention, the idea is that the recipient
> of the softeware must be able to modify it. If you distribute a DLL containing GPL'ed
> code the recipient must be able to modify that code and recreate the DLL.

I understand the intention, and I no intention of circumventing it.

However, libgcc is already non-modifiable in the present status quo case 
where the special exception applies.  When libgcc is statically linked, 
in the present situation, I seem to have no particular obligation to 
show code, allow it to be modified, or allow modifications to be recombined.

All I want to do is make a technical change of having libgcc dynamically 
  linked instead of statically linked.  Instead of libgcc being compiled 
into output.exe, its compiled into a libgcc.dll that must be distributed 
with output.txt.

In fact, not only is this change a technical improvement, but it is a 
free software advance, as it allows the library to be modified and 
recombined where previously impossible.  It is even possible to provide 
a written pointer to an FTP site with the source code in the 'version 
resource' of the shared library, which is clearly displayed in the 'File 
Properties' information for the file, which works in every version of 
Windows I am familiar with.

So, from my point of view, I am making an improvement both from a 
technical standpoint and a free software standpoint.  Despite this, it 
seems this change will impose a new legal requirement that will make 
this change unacceptable in the general case.  I am frustrated beyond 
belief.

Is there nothing I can do about this situation?

Aaron W. LaFramboise