New GCC Runtime Library Exception: not fit for purpose

[Joern Rennecke]

Quoting Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:

> Joern Rennecke <amylaar@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>>>> Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
>>>> which uses gcc runtime library interfaces.  For example, look at
>>>> libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
>>>> That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help here,
>>>> since we want to allow people to link programs containing   
>>>> non-GPL-compatible
>>>> code simultanously against libgloss and libgcc.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything which prohibits them from doing so.
>>
>> That would be the Berne Copyright convention.  I don't see anything
>> which allows them distributing the resulting binaries.
>
> The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
> certain conditions apply.  It does not say that you do not have
> permission if certain other conditions apply.  Therefore, if certain
> conditions apply, you have permission.  It is not necessary for the
> license to say "oh, and if you stand on your head, you still have
> permission.'

The permission is specific to a work of Target Code.  Assembly source files
are not Target Code, hence the permission does not apply.

>>> The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
>>> proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
>>> or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler.
>>
>> No, it says that you can only do that if every file of the proprietary code
>> is written or generated in a high level language, and uses the GCC runtime.
>
> The word "only" is your interpolation.  It does not appear in the
> runtime license.

It is a necessary condition for all the conditions of the exception to
apply that all of the proprietary code is written or generated in a high
level language, and uses the GCC runtime.  Only the one exception is
granted.  Hence, "only" is not an interpolation, it is a corollary.