From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94164 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2019 18:37:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 94148 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2019 18:37:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:10B8005, Fair, H*f:sk:da13f67, H*i:sk:da13f67 X-HELO: vlsi1.gnat.com Received: from vlsi1.gnat.com (HELO vlsi1.gnat.com) (205.232.38.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:37:27 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 3004) id D694833CAC; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:37:00 -0000 To: zlynx@acm.org Subject: Re: License compliance on updating gcc runtime libraries Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <20190227124135.E694D33CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com> <10B80055-C31C-4C46-84E9-0A8747CF4D41@pushface.org> <20190227132003.D949D33CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com> Message-Id: <20190227183725.D694833CAC@vlsi1.gnat.com> From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 > That depends on your local copyright law. Some, like the US, have > language saying that copies necessary for usual operation are *not* > covered under copyright. I'm refering to US law. Where, precisely, is the language you are referring to? Note that there are two separate issues: (1) Whether executing a program is considered making a copy under copyright law. (2) Whether somebody has an implicit right to make such a copy. Which of these two are you addressing? Note that there are cases where copyright law acknowleges that something is a copy, but permits making that copy. "Fair use" is probably the best known of those.