dupuy@riverside.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) (08/04/88)
In article <800001@hpmtlx.HP.COM> ed@hpmtlx.HP.COM ($Ed Schlotzhauer) writes: >Yes, but I believe gnu emacs would be an obscure and unused curiosity if >EVERY FILE I edited with it became the property of FSF/RMS. > >Likewise, making the source code of the g++ compiler freely sharable is a >great idea, but making all code COMPILED with it necessarily sharable will >seriously limit its acceptance. [other complaints deleted] First, a relevant quote from the GCC Public License: ______________________________________________________________________________ Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other program under the scope of these terms. 3. You may copy and distribute GNU CC (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal shipping charge) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.) ______________________________________________________________________________ As I understand it, there is no problem here (someone from FSF please correct me if I'm wrong). Code compiled or processed by g++ or gcc, or bison, etc. -is not- copylefted. Code derived from GNU sources, including runtime libraries, -is- copylefted. So how do I, J. Random Capitalist, use g++ to compile my proprietary whizbang? If I compile and link with g++, I can't just distribute a binary, since by virtue of including the runtime support library, my whizbang is _derived_ from GNU source. Instead, I provide binaries of g++ and libg++, plus all the .o files which are needed to build my proprietary whizbang. The installation script can link them together. It might be possible to provide a prelinked binary executable, but that is arguably more than "mere aggregation". To comply with the copyleft, I must provide (upon request) sources to g++ and libg++. I can charge a reasonable handling fee for this. Caveat: I am not a lawyer - before you do this, have a good copyright lawyer look at the GNU copyleft restrictions, and ask FSF what their feeling is. @alex -- inet: dupuy@columbia.edu uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!dupuy