🚀 go-pugleaf

Nelson Minar  <nelson@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>I'm helping someone who wants to make a Linux version of a big C++
>program available. They are happy to distribute the executable under
>relatively reasonable terms, but will not distribute the source and
>are generally skittish about legal issues.

[ clause from iostream files ]
>    As a special exception, if you link this library with files
>    compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does not cause
>    the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>
>Is that right? How do they verify that they are only incorporating
>code with this license on it, and are not accidentally linking in
>something that's under the LGPL or GPL? Also, are there any
>requirements from linking with GNU libc itself?

Everything in -lstdc++ has the special exception license.  The older
-lg++ classes are under the LGPL.  GNU libc is under the LGPL.

>Finally, what happens to the LGPL if you distribute something that's
>dynamically linked agains the LGPLed libraries? Does that satisfy the
>LGPL requirements?

Yes, this satisfies the LGPL requirements.
-- 
-- Joe Buck
   work: jbuck@synopsys.com, otherwise jbuck@welsh-buck.org or jbuck@best.net
http://www.welsh-buck.org/