Re: static libgcc license?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Adam,

All my responses below are with the caveats:
+ as per my understanding
+ I am not a lawyer

>GIVEN the constraints we desire for our binary...

What are those constraints?

>Critically, if you link statically then you MUST provide source, a second
executable that is linked dynamically, or object files that the user can link
themselves.

For works that are derivative from the LGPL library's source code itself:
correct.

For works that are not derivative from the LGPL library's source itself:
incorrect.

>It depends on whether the library distributed with the statically-linked binary
is GPL or LGPL.

Granted.  If YOUR binary is GPL, the GCC library can be distributed GPL.
That is a specific provision in the LGPL.

If YOUR binary is LGPL, the GCC library can be distributed LGPL.

And if YOUR binary is not LGPL nor GPL (but, say, completely proprietary),
the GCC library can be distributed LGPL.  Either statically or dynamically.

And if the GCC library was modified, there is an obligation to provide the
modified source code.

>For compliance with the former case [GPL library] our source must be rendered
GPL and in the latter case the binary is rendered LGPL

Yes, you are correct. You can distribute YOUR source as GPL.  The LGPL GCC
library does not prevent you from doing that, and the LGPL specifically
allows you to redistribute the GCC library as GPL as well.

(And encourages more GPL contributions in general.  To the benefit of all
humanity.)

>We're wishing to simply provide a binary which is statically linked with
libgcc, which was the main precept given in my original question.

The main answer to the main precept is:  yes, you can do that.

>Within the constraints of the vanilla LGPL, we would then have to provide one
of a number of alternative forms of our product, as given in section 6 of the
LGPL.

6d is fairly easy and painless to be in compliance with.

Is that outside the bounds of your constraints?

>If libgcc is vanilla GPL...

The libgcc is not GPL, it is LGPL.

>It is NOT clear to me what the license of libgcc is, particularly the one
linked by GCC 3.1.1 before additional exemptions went in.

The libgcc is LGPL.

Sincerely,
--Eljay


[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux