Re: lirc license
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
Andreas Bombe <firstname.lastname@example.org> GPG key 0x04880A44