Re: Built-Using, libgcc, and libc_nonshared
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> mksh-static of course links statically and therefore pulls in
>> substantial portions of library source, but there are parts of libgcc
>> and possibly libc that are always incorporated into binaries, even ones
>> that are dynamically linked.
> Are those parts that are incorporated when dynamically linking
> substantial enough to be relevant for copyright law?
That's an interesting question. I don't know. (Furthermore, I don't know
if they're guaranteed to not become so later even if they aren't now.)
> If so, the gcc runtime license is problematic, since it would render all
> GPLv2-only programs nondistributable by Debian dstributors because the
> clause "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" would
> take effect.
Oh, I think this is the point that Jakub was making, but I didn't think it
all the way through. The problem is that, while the runtime exception
allows the resulting executable binary to be distributed under the terms
of the GPLv2, the GPLv2 itself requires that all of the *source* for the
binary be distributed under the GPLv2. And the libgcc *source* is only
available under the GPLv3, and the runtime exception doesn't allow one to
distribute the *source* under different terms, only the resulting binary.
Bleh.
Clearly no one else in the world is worrying about this; there's lots of
GPLv2-only software out there and all the distributions are happily
distributing binaries built with current GCC without worrying about this.
I'm not sure to what extent we can use that as an excuse, though.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: