The GCC Steering Committee, along with the Free Software Foundation
and the Software Freedom Law Center, is pleased to announce the release
of a new GCC Runtime Library Exception.
This license exception has been developed to allow various GCC
libraries to upgrade to GPLv3. It will also enable
* David Edelsohn:
> We have also published a rationale document and FAQ to help users
> understand the exception better. It is avaliable at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
Is it deliberate that the exception does not extend to programs
compiled with GCJ?
David Edelsohn writes:
> The GCC Steering Committee, along with the Free Software Foundation
> and the Software Freedom Law Center, is pleased to announce the release
> of a new GCC Runtime Library Exception.
>
> This license exception has been developed to allow various GCC
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:51:22PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Edelsohn:
>
> > We have also published a rationale document and FAQ to help users
> > understand the exception better. It is avaliable at:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> Is it deliberate t
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee, along with the Free Software Foundation
> and the Software Freedom Law Center, is pleased to announce the release
> of a new GCC Runtime Library Exception.
>
> This license exception has been developed to al
And here the website update...
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.683
retrieving revision 1.685
diff -u -3 -p -r1.683 -r1.685
--- index.html 24 Jan 2009 14:13:55 -
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> +January 27, 2008
2009 ;)
Adam
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Adam Nemet wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
>> +January 27, 2008
> 2009 ;)
Oops. Good catch! I guess that shows this was a bit of a lengthy
process. ;-)
Gerald
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Is the full wording of a sample copyright/license header that should go in
> all affected GCC source files available?
I will check on this. I think I may have something from the FSF about
that; if not, we'll figure out what to do.
> Do I understand correctly that all
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > (But that e.g. Makefiles building the libraries
> > should use GPLv3+ without any exception, and tm.h headers should not have
> > the exception even though they provide a few macros for libgcc.)
>
> Yes, except that I think tm.h headers should have
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The tm.h headers are a lot of essentially host-side code with a few macros
> such as LIBGCC2_LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE that affect target-side code in some
> cases. But if we should add the exception to over 8 lines of code
> (the amount of config/*.h and config/*/*.h
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > The tm.h headers are a lot of essentially host-side code with a few macros
> > such as LIBGCC2_LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE that affect target-side code in some
> > cases. But if we should add the exception to over 8 lines o
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Then there are lots of other miscellaneous license issues: files that have
> been added with GPLv2 on the host side since the main transition was done,
> I don't know what issues are or are not considered how critical.
Let's not turn this into a complete license
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:17:27AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > lines long) distributed by GCC that go into runtime libraries used by
> > GCC-compiled code, except those shared with outside projects such as glibc
> > and Classpath (but including e.g. the non-Classpath files in libjava, and
> >
* Joe Buck:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:51:22PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * David Edelsohn:
>>
>> > We have also published a rationale document and FAQ to help users
>> > understand the exception better. It is avaliable at:
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>>
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". If I'm not mistaken,
there is currently no usable Java-to-bytecode compiler with a license
that is GPLv3-compa
Florian Weimer 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 s
> 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
Joern Rennecke 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
* Ian Lance Taylor:
> Florian Weimer 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
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> Florian Weimer 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 c
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> Will the transition to use GPLv3+exception need to be made on release
>> branches before any more releases are made from them (so that if anyone
>> should volunteer to the SC to make any further 4.2 releases, before the
>> poi
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> We should just update the licenses on the trunk. The change from GPLv2
>> to GPLv3 in the midst of the 4.2.x release cycle was confusing to
>> people. I see no reason to do that again.
>
> This matches my understanding as well. I do believe that GCC 4.4 should
> be re
* Ian Lance Taylor:
>>> 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
A file is an "Independent Module" if it is not based on the Runtime
Library, except that it may either require the Runtime Library for
execution after a Compilation Process, or make use of an interface
provided by the
Runtime Library.
Definitions of "GCC" and "GPL-compatible sotware as in th
Sorry, something went wrong while I edited the message and it was sent
prematurely.
Quoting Joern Rennecke :
A file is an "Independent Module" if it is not based on the Runtime
Library, except that it may either require the Runtime Library for
execution after a Compilation Process, or make use
Hmm, I didn't specifically think of the case where the Source code is
not a high level language, but a code generator is used to generate
a high-level language which is to be compiled with gcc.
E.g. someone might have some assembly Source Code which they translate
to C to migrate to new hardware,
Joern Rennecke wrote:
1. Grant of Additional Permission.
You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
all Target Code was eithwe g
The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files
that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file
is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is
implemented as a libgcc function all by gcc, but if the multiply is
implemented b
Joern Rennecke writes:
> The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files
> that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file
> is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is
> implemented as a libgcc function all by gcc, but
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both include pieces of the gcc runtime and arbitrary piece
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>
>> 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 th
ick 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 u
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> 2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>>>
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 c
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
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 pro
Joern Rennecke writes:
>>> Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
>>> which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
>>> libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
>>> That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help her
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
it.
There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
Independent Module because it does not use the GCC runtime librar
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible do
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
>> that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
>> it.
>
> There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
> Independent Module because
Joern Rennecke writes:
>> The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
>> certain conditions apply. It does not say that you do not have
>> permission if certain other conditions apply. Therefore, if certain
>> conditions apply, you have permission. It is not necessary for
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
>> any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
>
> The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
> both include pieces of th
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
No, this is not how Copyright works. In the absence of a license you may
not distribute the resulting work.
By my reading, you do have permission. It's right there in the
license.
You are arguing that the license must grant explicit permis
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both incl
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
> Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
>
>> Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
>>>
>>> The old runtime library e
Joern Rennecke writes:
> You seem to be saying that I could do incremental linking, first
> linking libgcc against the Independent Modules, slapping my own
> license on the partially linked work of Target Code (provided all
> used pieces of libgcc are target code - that is hardly ever the
> case,
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime libra
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
The incremental linking argument is irrelevant. Either it's OK
without that or it's not OK with that.
Well, if we disregard incremental linking, than the propagation
is clearly not allowed.
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
more spec
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
> more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
> and anything else you feel like.
> Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
> generated by Eligibl
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
and anything else you feel like.
Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
Joern Rennecke writes:
> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
> incorporate pieces of it. You'd only need to make sure that
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
incorporate pieces of it. You'd only
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> Joern Rennecke writes:
>>
>>> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
>>> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
>>> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Yes, I believe that "Independent Modules" is intended to mean "any
code." However, it needs to be careful to not grant additional rights
to other parts of gcc itself. And in any case the only code which it
can control is code which uses the runtime library--the runti
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
> > I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
> > any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
>
> The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribu
Quoting Joe Buck :
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
> I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
> any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed yo
56 matches
Mail list logo
