🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <932@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@eedsp.UUCP (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:
=>
=>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?
=>
   I'm not official, but I'll comment on it anyway. I would think that since
header files don't really "generate code", they shouldn't be a problem.
For example, #define's, struct's, and typedef's don't compile into recognizable
assembly instructions. They are just compiler instructions. Therefore, since
header files aren't being translated into the compiler's output, there is no
reason that they should "contaminate" it.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration



--
                          gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu
      _o_                 --------------------------                 _o_
    [|o o|]     "My field is blood and guts programming." -- Me    [|o o|]
     |_O_|      "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who     |_O_|