Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 14:23 UTC, submitted by Valhalla
Thread beginning with comment 477680
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: GPL compiler with non-GPL code?
by Alfman on Sat 18th Jun 2011 10:55
in reply to "RE[3]: GPL compiler with non-GPL code?"
RE[5]: GPL compiler with non-GPL code?
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Jun 2011 11:22
in reply to "RE[4]: GPL compiler with non-GPL code?"
lemur2,
You are saying what you want to hear, rather than what's true.
What the heck, if it makes you feel any better, I say you're right about everything. Enjoy your weekend.
You are saying what you want to hear, rather than what's true.
What the heck, if it makes you feel any better, I say you're right about everything. Enjoy your weekend.
I have said nothing at all untrue.
Copyright law says what it says, I am not making it up.
I offered you a perfectly reasonable, obvious, sensible explanation of why the license for GCC includes exemptions for small libraries, even though these exemptions are not required by copyright law itself.
It makes perfect sense.
You have got nothing. Hence your reply.
Have a good weekend yourself.





Member since:
2007-02-17
This question has already been asked, and answered. The small libraries included by GCC into compiled works are not major elements of GCC, and so the works compiled by GCC are not derived works of GCC, under the definitions in copyright law.
However, the authors of GCC did not want users of GCC to have to rely on this, it would likely be seen by some people as tenuous and indirect. Detractors of free software could spread doubt about using GCC.
Far better to simply say, straight out right there in the GCC license itself, that these small libraries are exempt. Then no-one could possibly have any doubts about them.
Edited 2011-06-18 10:26 UTC