Licensing of libgcc and libstdc++ as shared libraries

[Mike Stump]

On Jun 21, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>   I'd very strongly recommend against it, since really there's no 
> ambiguity
> in the language at all: static linking is covered by the exception, 
> dynamic
> linking isn't.

I think this was a small oversight in migrating to shared libraries.  I 
think it should just be `fixed' in the exception clause.  Someone would 
have to propose that to the SC, the SC would have to sign off on the 
concept and then someone would have to ask the FSF for their blessing.

The reasoning is simple, the exception exists so that people can use 
gcc in the real world and not be obligated into the various 
requirements of the GPL.  That was `broken' when non-gcc bearing 
systems use gcc to compile applications.  That is a regression.  The 
fix is obvious.

We can note that on gcc bearing systems, libgcc.so is already present, 
and on those OSes, the OS vendor already provides the source to the 
library, thus relieving application providers from having to worry 
about the issue.

I think this can be summed up as a corner case of dll hell.