🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

	I also write myself a liscencing agreement for this which
	prevents people from even looking in its general direction
	without asking me first.

	3)	I sell this object to I.M.Gullable plc for an
	unimaginably large sum, also sending them a tape with the gcc
	distribution on it.

	4)	IMG compiles the program using g++ linking in libg++.

Now, I have lots of money; IMG has a runnable with liscencing
restrictions saying

	a) If you redistribute this you must also distribute source.
	b) You may not redistribute this.

they can't redistribute it, so copyleft doesn't cause me any
headaches; and FSF have a new customer.

Of course this wouldn't work for people cross-developing programs for
systems on which g++ won't run.

[ Note, I'm not saying that the above is civilised behaviour, but it
  seems to be within the rules ]