Ian,
This is not true on most platforms. On most platforms, the profiling library (e.g., -lpg and gcrt1.o) is part of the system. The profiling
ah, ok. wasn't aware of that.
library is never part of gcc. gcc itself imposes no restrictions on code compiled with profiling. Any such restrictions come from somewhere else.
but the profiling library has to be called and for that calls there has to be code generated automatically isn't it? who inserts that code? gcc? then what about the copyright of those injected calls to an external (system provided, non-GPL'ed) library? injecting a _single_ line of GPL'ed code would be enough to trigger license terms proliferation or not?
or does it only mean i must release source if i distribute an executable containing GCC profiling code? and what does "distribute" then include?
Correct. The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute code. See the GPL FAQ: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
ok, should have read the complete FAQ;) guess you're referring to http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
now, from this i interpret: for a commercial software business to contract an external independent freelancer to develop code might expose the business to legal threats:
"In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."
that is, if the freelancer "distributes" an executable with profiling embedded to the contracting body (for test reasons e.g.), that would violate license terms at least for MinGW exposing the business to legal threats. you already emphasized profiling license terms are specific to MingGW, not GCC.
Nobody understands all the legal implications, because some of them are unknown at this time. That said, any competent IP lawyer should
guess this is very true and probably brings the whole issue to the point. hold back your arms .. i'm not in the FUD game.
Cheers, Tobias
