From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4223 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2009 09:35:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4215 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2009 09:35:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.enyo.de (HELO mail.enyo.de) (212.9.189.167) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:35:30 +0000 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1MVMc6-0007PA-PF; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:35:22 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVMc6-0002kO-6z; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:35:22 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Joe Buck , "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> <20090726015725.GA29580@synopsys.com> <87y6qc0wmc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20090726215044.GA21312@synopsys.com> <87ocr6ejwr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4A6D5274.6060605@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4A6D5274.6060605@gnu.org> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:08:36 +0200") Message-ID: <87prbmcvtx.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00546.txt.bz2 * 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.)