NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/2528

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-23 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!mib
From: [e-mail] (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GCC licensing issues.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:33:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 28
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 22 Jul 92 18:48:06 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Magid) writes:

   hi,
   the executables that gcc creates have no limitations in the
   way that they are sold and/or copied, other than the ones
   you apply in your own copyright, i.e. the GNU copyleft doesn't
   effect it, as long as you don't link it with any gnu libraries.

   if you do, than it is covered by the gnu library lisence which
   requires taht you provide the object code for your modules and
   the source for the library (so that one could modify the library
   and relink if one desired)

This is not strictly accurate.  Some libraries are covered by the GPL,
and so you can't distribute the linked binary unless you provide full
source code.  Some libraries are covered by the GLPL, which allows you
to do what Mr. Magid describes in his second paragraph.  Some
libraries are considerably more lenient.  Into this category falls
gnulib (distributed as part of GCC).

What this means is that you should look at the copyright notice for
the particular library you are using, and follow its conditions.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |        Benedictus qui venit
[phone] (H)            -+-                       in
[phone] (W)             |                      Nomine
[e-mail]              |                      Domini