🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RJC.90May1210259@brodie.uk.ac.ed.aipna> rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna (Richard Caley) writes:
>Could someone please, by email if its obvious or has been gone over
>before, tell me why libg++ being copylefted is so much of a pain. Why
>does the following scenario not work
>
>	1)	I develop a program using g++ which I decide for some
>	reason I want to sell without source.
>
>	2)	I build it and link it into an object module
>	_without_linking_in_libg++. This object module will not be
>	under the GPL, if I understand things correctly.
>
> [... and so forth]

This is where the argument breaks down, Richard and others: unlike libc,
libg++ is as much SOURCE code (in header files) as it is real library
OBJECT code. Thus, when you ``build'' it by compiling your source code,
you've included the libg++ header files (source code) and thus bring your
final product under the GPL.

This is the real difference between gcc and g++ -- header files are much
more important to the latter. Hopefully, the ``standard'' libraries will
be released, somehow, from the GPL in the future. Can someone official
comment on this?

Kurt
-- 
Kurt Baudendistel --- GRA
Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA  30332
internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu         uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud