On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: > > In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked > > statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used > > to be GPL. libgcc (and similar parts of gcc) have license additions to > > prevent every executable from being neccessarily GPL licensed. > > > > In short it's not the output of gcc, but the automatically linked libgcc > > that created license problems. > > gcc itself carries a similar exemption, to be sure.
I looked around in the gcc source and that doesn't seem to be the case. Besides if it were, the gcc debs would have erronous /u/s/d/copyright files that don't mention that (only the linked libs exception is mentioned). -- Andreas Bombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG key 0x04880A44 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
