Re: Compiling programs licensed under the GPL version 2 with GCC 4.4

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Paolo Bonzini:

>> But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those
>> changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right?
>
> Yes.  But if you change the runtime library and link something else
> with the modified runtime library, the "something else" does not fall
> automatically under the GPLv3, even if you distribute them together.

Yes---but we've been told repeatedly over the years that you cannot
link GPLv2 programs with libraries under a GPLv2-incompatible license
and ship both on the same media, even if the library license is not
copyleft-like and does not prevent this.  (If this was possible, it
would be rather trivial to work around the copyleft character of the
GPLv2.)

> The runtime library must be accompanied by the preferred form for
> modification (source code), the "something else" can even be
> distributed as a binary.

It's not the run-time library license that's the problem here.  It's
the GPLv2-only program whose license appears to be infringed by
linking against the run-time library and distributing the combined
result.

Keep in mind that for a GPLv2-only program, the GPLv3 is like a
proprietary license (quite similar in effect to the Apache License
2.0, or the OpenSSL license, or the QPL, or the BSD license with the
advertising clause).

I wouldn't object if the FSF publicly declared that under their
interpretation of the GPLv2, the system library exception in the GPLv2
allows us to link against libraries shipped in a separate Debian
package, dynamically or statically.  We likely have that permission
under copyright anyway.  It's just against everything the FSF has told
us over the years, so I don't think it will happen.

(Legally, a placet from the FSF doesn't buy as anything, of course,
because individual copyright holders may not share the FSF
interpretation.  But it would be a signal nevertheless.)