Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries

[Daniel Berlin]

On Jun 21, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Per Bothner wrote:

> Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>>> 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".
>> I don't see any validity to this argument whatever.
>
> Which do you disagree with: the first sentence or the second?
>
> Assuming it's the second:  I agree it's a stretch, but it depends
> on the meaning of "linking".  The intent is to refer to traditional
> linking as we're used to thinking of it, but one might argue that
> just an implemention technique.  However, I would not recommend
> making decisons based on this interpretation.


Free non-"legal advice" (i don't take the bar for another month):

Any time you have to say "one might argue", it means you are going to 
court, which means don't do it in the first place :).

--Dan