In message <orsmp85v4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexandre Oliva writ es: >I don't know where you got this idea from. It was never meant to be. >IIRC, at some point we noticed some libgcc files were missing the >run-time exception, and this mistake was corrected in the earliest >release that followed. If you're overly paranoid, you might consider >libgcc as pure-GPL for this reason, and prefer to use a newer libgcc >instead. If you trust the FSF to not sue over an unintentional >licensing mistake, you may use the earlier version. Also note the FSF has a statement on their website which touches on this issue. It states pretty clearly their intention is that using tools such as GCC does not infect the resulting program with the GPL. The intention for libgcc has always been GPL + exception clause. There were a couple places where the exception clause was missed and a couple places where libgcc included .h files it should not have included. But the intention remains that the license for libgcc is GPL + exception clause. Jeff
