New GCC Runtime Library Exception

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>>
>>> The difference is that the front end does not work on source code, but
>>> Java bytecode, which seems closer to intermediate representation than
>>> to a "high-level, non-intermediate language".
>>
>> I think it is clear that Java bytecode, which can even be executed
>> directly by some microprocessors, is not a "compiler intermediate
>> representation."
>
> It is often used as some form of portable IR, to implement additional
> functionality on the Java platform.

An IR is not the same as a "compiler intermediate representation."


>>> Other cases are rather unclear, too.  A hypothetical QPL-licensend
>>> compiler which links against libgcc (Objective Caml apparently
>>> doesn't) cannot produce an Eligible Compilation Process because it is
>>> a work based on GCC (thanks to libgcc), and not everything is
>>> GPL-licensed.  Interpreters capable of producing ELF binaries might
>>> also be affected by a similar issue.
>>
>> Your argument here seems to be that linking against libgcc makes a
>> program be covered by the definition of "GCC" in the runtime library
>> license.
>
> Right.  Why do you think this would not be the case?  libgcc is part
> of GCC, so a program linking to libgcc is a derivative work of libgcc,
> and therefore GCC.  That's precisely why we need an exception in the
> first place because this outcome is not desired (a free operating
> system could not distribute compiled binaries of C++ programs using
> OpenSSL, for instance--in contrast to proprietary operating systems,
> the system library exception cannot be used).

That is the cycle which the runtime library license is intended to
break, so now I'm just confused.

Ian