Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries

[Per Bothner]

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.

But we're not talking about GPL'd code - we're talking about
GPL-with-exception.

If you statically link libgcc and/or libstdc++ with an application to 
form an executable, there is no source distribution requirement.  At
least that is my reading of the license.

However, when you distribute the libraries as DLLs, my reading of
the license in libgcc2.c is that you need to distribute source for
the DLLs, but not source for any application that uses them.
However, that's a gray area: you might argue that an installation
program that installs both the libries and an executable that uses
the libraries is "linked".
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/