From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31917 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2009 21:47:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 31907 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2009 21:47:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:47:35 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so627740fgb.5 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.25.14 with SMTP id 14mr2868964fgy.14.1248731253232; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yakj.usersys.redhat.com (nat-pool-str.redhat.com [66.187.229.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm14287761fgb.3.2009.07.27.14.47.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A6E2071.1050605@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:47:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florian Weimer CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Compiling programs licensed under the GPL version 2 with GCC 4.4 References: <87y6qcfprf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <87y6qcfprf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2 On 07/25/2009 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The run-time library is GPL version 3 or > later, which is incompatible with GPL version 2, so it is not > permitted to link this with the GPLv2-only program and distribute the > result. (Previous discussions have centered on infringing GCC's > license, so this is different.) You should have said why here or at least further down in the thread. Instead you always used vague terms. I now understand fully the issue because it was pointed out to me outside the ML in a much more complete way. And it is definitely none of this list's business---which is why I'm not mentioning the real source of doubt in this message, either. Paolo