Re: libstdc++ still has license conditions of SGI STL on top of GNU GPLv3+GCC Runtime Exception, right?

[Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se>]

On 2020-05-26 at 10:27, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 02:09, P. - <pressbuttonsharder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are a few ways where ignoring those licenses is possible:
>> 1) Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. has voluntarily contributed their code to be distributed under GCC's license and the notices are there for historical reason - can't find anything about that;
>> 2) FSF/libstdc++ maintainers has obtained special permissions from Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. to distribute their code under GCC's license - again, can't find anything;
>> 3) The license actually covers only notes and comments that exist only in header files - the libstdc++'s FAQ contradicts that (see the link in the original email);
>> 4) The code that is covered by those licenses exists only in compile time and is thrown away when compiled.
>>
>> The lawyer can't answer those 4 questions - only the libstdc++ maintainers/authors can.
> Those aren't question, they're statements, and I don't even know what
> the fourth one means. But anyway, my personal understanding is that
> none of them is true. It seems silly to assume that the licence terms
> stated in the file are only there accidentally, or some other
> convoluted assumption that contradicts the actual text in the files. A
> much simpler explanation is that you've misinterpreted the license
> terms. Talk to a lawyer if you're concerned.
>

Another prespective for P.:

Suppose Hewlett-Packard were to defend their copyright. They would then 
have so sue just about every software developer in the world. Who would 
then buy their products?!

My guess (I am not a lawyer :-) is that they are not that stupid.


    Bo Persson