Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com>:
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net>:
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.
Where does it say that?
Where does it grant any other permission?
It allows you to propagate a work of Target code formed by combining
the Runtime Library with Independent Modules under certain conditions,
but
it doesn't give you any permission to propagate a work that also includes
code that is neither part of the Runtime Library nor an Independent Module.
And a file is only an Independent Module if it either requires the Runtime
Library for execution after the Compilation Process, or makes use of an
interface provided by the Runtime library.
Hence, if a file of your code does not use the GCC runtime, it is not an
Independent Module, and thus no permission is given to include it in a link
with the runtime library.
Moreover, since the permission is specific for a work of Target Code, and
all Target Code has to be generated by Eligible Compilation Processes,
it follows that all of your code - and all of the Runtime Library code -
included in the link must be generated by an Eligible Compilation process
for the exception to apply.
An Eligible compilation process is defined such that it can only apply
to code represented in a hihg-level language, so if any you the libgcc
code, your code, or any third-party library code is written in assembler,
the exception can't apply, i.e. the only license you could possibly
propagate the resulting binary under would be GPLv3 or later.
Have you contacted licens...@fsf.org ?
I thought that there so may things wrong with this license that we should
first have a discussion on what we think it should say so as to archive
the stated purpose.
We know the intention of the license.
Indeed. That's why we can dicusss in what ways it does not meet that
intention.
There is also the FAQ:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
Which contains a number of false assumptions and non sequiturs.
Not every file of source code that doesn't contain any source from GCC
libraries qualifies as an "Independent Module" as defined. As a matter
of fact, which ones qualify depends on the target processor, but in
general the ratio is rather low.
And hardly anybody will be able to use the GCC Runtime Library Exception,
I.E. the recommendation should be to stick with a previous version of GCC.
If we are missing some legal technicality,
I don't think these are mere legal technicalities, this is a fundamental
failure to say what you mean.
The new GCC runtime library exception will hardly give anyone any rights
that they don't already have under the GPL, since we got non-highlevel
code in the runtime library, i.e. most links are not producing a work
of Target Code generated by an Eligible Compilation Process.
