linking with libstdc++

Benjamin Kosnik bkoz@redhat.com
Sun Jul 28 12:27:00 GMT 2002


> At the risk of starting an off-topic thread, I don't understand why
> you believe this.  We have two sets of licenses for libraries, the
> LGPL and the GPL-with-special-exception.  In either case, there are
> legal ways to distribute statically linked executables even if there
> is proprietary code.  There are conditions to be met, yes.  If an LGPL
> library is used, there has to be a way of relinking with a newer
> version of the library, but that could be met by a variety of means
> (for example, by distributing proprietary parts as .o files).  But the
> libstdc++ license is even looser:

I'm tied up in other work, so don't intend to get into this. However, it
would be helpful Joe if you could think about a way to modify this
wording so as to be more clear:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html

I'd appreciate it.

thanks,
benjamin



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list