karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) (08/09/89)
How many times must it be said? The only ``runtime library'' currently being distributed is gnulib (and gnulib2), which are arithmetic (and other similar low-level operations) for gcc. gnulib and gnulib2 are not copylefted, because the routines are so small, there is no question of code derivation. (Anyway, it doesn't really matter what the reason is; they're not copylefted.) When the standard C runtime library is released, it will most likely be copylefted, and programs linked with that will be considered GNU-derived, and so will be subject to the copyleft. But it is not released now, so most of this discussion is strictly hypothetical. Perhaps the copyleft is legal; perhaps it isn't. If you are concerned about its legality, you should consult a lawyer, not the net. If you think copylefting software is wrong, that's your prerogative, but there is no need to state your opinion again; it has been expressed many times in the last few weeks. karl@umb.edu ...!harvard!umb!karl
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/09/89)
In article <878@umb.umb.edu> karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) writes: >When the standard C runtime library is released, it Does this mean that gcc uses a vendor supplied C library ???? Mart van Stiphout.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/10/89)
From article <103@euteal.ele.tue.nl>, by mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout): " " Does this mean that gcc uses a vendor supplied C library ???? Yes. At least, the last version of gnulib I looked at consisted of new names associated with calls to functions in a real library. It would have taken some nerve to copyleft this, wouldn't it? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
cjeffery@arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) (08/11/89)
From article <878@umb.umb.edu>, by karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.): > ...When the standard C runtime library is released, it will most likely be > copylefted, and programs linked with that will be considered GNU-derived, > and so will be subject to the copyleft...If you think copylefting software > is wrong, that's your prerogative, but there is no need to state your > opinion again; it has been expressed many times in the last few weeks. Oh, I don't know, the volume of confused, angry postings from people is probably one more useful measure of GNU's policies. Redundancy is useful. And copylefting all works linked with the GNU runtime library is like copylefting all files edited with GNUemacs. It makes the tool unusable by the general public, and usable only by FSF. P.S. I love the GNU project too... -- | Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science | cjeffery@arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery --