On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 13:21, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:12:44 +0100 > > Cc: gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-help <gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org> > > From: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 10:06, Qifan.Zhou via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > Dear GCC Team, > > > > Please don't email both gcc@gcc.gnu.org and gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org, pick > > the appropriate one. You're not discussing development of GCC so this > > belongs on the gcc-help list. > > > > Anyway ... > > > > > I hope this message finds you well. I'm writing to seek official > > > clarification regarding the use of GCC compilers in our proprietary, > > > closed-source commercial software development. > > > Our specific use case involves: > > > > > > 1. > > > Using GCC executables (gcc.exe<https://gcc.exe/>, g++.exe, etc.) to > > > compile and link our C/C++ source code > > > 2. > > > Dynamically linking to GCC runtime libraries (libstdc++, libgcc, etc.) > > > 3. > > > Potential distribution of our compiled binaries to customers without > > > source code > > > > > > Based on our understanding of the GPL and LGPL licenses: > > > > > > * > > > We believe that simply using GCC to compile our software doesn't require > > > us to open-source our code > > > * > > > Dynamic linking to LGPL-licensed runtime libraries appears permissible > > > for proprietary software > > > * > > > However, we want to ensure full compliance with all licensing requirements > > > > Nobody on this list is going to give you legal advice. You should read > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html > > > > Quoting from that document: > > "However, the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's > > libraries to compile any program, regardless of its license." > > "Therefore, these libraries have always had license exceptions that > > allow people to distribute the object code GCC produces under any > > license." > > AFAIU, this is accurate if libgcc and libstdc++ are linked statically, > but not if the program is linked to their DLL versions (and therefore > the DLLs must be distributed with the resulting program). In the > latter case, the LGPL exception doesn't apply, and distributing these > DLLs falls under GPL instead.
Those libraries are not licensed with the LGPL so I don't know what that has to do with anything. > > Since linking to these libraries statically is not recommended, > especially if the program is a C++ program, the above means in > practice that the two libraries, if a program is linked to them > dynamically, impose GPL. Whether this means the source code of the > compiled program must also be made available, I don't know.
