On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 12:47 +0200, Martin Costabel wrote: > Peter O'Gorman wrote: > [] > > The g95 situation means that, due to the nature of the GPL, anything > > built with g95 becomes GPL licensed. > > Do you have an official word from the g95 authors on this or is this > just speculation? Normally, the output of a GPL compiler does not > automatically have to be GPL; this is actually mentioned in the GPL > itself. There are no dylibs in g95 that are needed for running > g95-compiled binaries.
When I looked at the files for the runtime libraries on the web, I saw no GPL exception. When I look at the downloaded version of these files, I see an exception. It is entirely possible that I'm just spreading FUD. Peter
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
