🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCCALPIN.89Jul26162658@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu>, mccalpin@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes...
>The GNU copyleft _does_ say that: *if* you _distribute_ a program
>produced by way of the GNU software, then you have to distribute the
>source for that program also, for at most a copying fee.

This is not the case of compiling something with GCC.  If you compile
using GCC it is still a salable product.  If you excerpt code from GCC
and put that code into your product then the product must be copyleft.
Actually the case is if you include any copylefted code then the
product must be copyleft.

>I'll leave it for others to decide whether run-time libraries are
>reasonably included in this (I think not), but the agreement clearly
>covers _distribution_ of programs, not merely their creation.

In a prior article it was stated that the run-time libraries are *not*
copylefted.  If this is the case then a product can be made using the
GNU run-time libraries without having to copyleft.

Why don't we just post the GNU license in misc.legal and ask if one of
the lawyer types who reads it can explain under what conditions code
contamination occurs?

    Believing the GNU license is probably a little too stringent,

				shades
============================================================================
| But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper                 | 
| ive trick, nor formed to court an   | cooper@vlab.enet.dec.com	   |
| amorous looking glass...            | business (508) 467-3678            |
|                                     | home (617) 925-1099                |
============================================================================
Note: I'm a consultant.  My opinions are *MY* opinions.