Hi Jonathan, > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> > Gesendet: Montag, 11. Mai 2020 13:58 > An: Keil, Jochen (SE T SO PE T 1 2) <jochen.keil@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx > Betreff: Re: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx > > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:58, Keil, Jochen via Gcc-help > <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > In our team we are employing GCC for embedded products which require > statically linked binaries. Our own code is proprietary, hence we would like to > make use of the GPL-3.0+ Runtime Exception. We do not modify the GCC nor > use Plugins to modify intermediate code, therefore I think we are allowed to > link our object code statically with libgcc without releasing our proprietary > source code. > > > > However, upon closer inspection of the GCC sources I found that the files > in the `libcc1` and `libcpp` folders do only carry the licensing terms of GPL- > 3.0+ without any mention of the Runtime Exception. Is it still valid to use > those libraries with statically linked proprietary code? > > As Florian said, you should ask your lawyers for legal advice. Are you > even linking to libcc1 and libcpp though? If you're not linking to > them, their license doesn't affect your code. We are trying to figure that out currently. My bet was that libcc1 and libcpp only internal libraries for GCC and not necessary for binaries produced by GCC unless you interface with them. But that's only an assumption, so if you or someone else could elaborate on that I'd very much appreciate that! Thank you very much and best regards, Jochen
