🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Mar3.201807.9013@bnrmtl.bnr.ca>, marc@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Marc Beaulieu) writes:
|> If we use GCC (or G++) to compile a program, does our program have to be
|> licensed under the GPL (we cannot sell the executables generated.)?
|> 
|> The basis under this interpretation is that our executables contain
|> C++ library code and thus "contains or is a derivative of GNU CC".
|> Is this interpretation correct?

No, that makes your executables a derivative of libg++, not of Gnu CC.
libg++ version 1.39 is subject to the GPL, so yes, your executables that
use it would need to be GPL-licensed.

Certain routines that are stuck in by gcc are not copylefted -- the
functions in "gnulib" that do things like division on machines that don't
have a divide instruction, etc.  FSF would have a hard time justifying
a copyleft if you take a look at the way these routines are generated --
they are things like

int div(int a,int b) { return a/b;}

which are run through the native compiler (which means that they contain
the native compiler's divide routine, not FSF's at all).

libg++ 2.0, to be released any day now, uses the less restrictive LGPL.
Check that license for the restrictions.  Basically, you'd need to ship
the .o files for your code and the source to libg++, plus a makefile,
and you wouldn't be allowed to forbid your customers to attempt to enhance
your software or to "reverse engineer" it.  (You could also ship a pre-linked
executable).

-- 
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu