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

["P. -" <pressbuttonsharder@gmail.com>]

> Maybe because the "it-is-going-to-end-up-in-the-binary-code" terms
> don't exist for those licenses. The terms make no mention of object
> code. Contrast that with the GPL, Apache, BSD-3-clause, and XFree86
> licences which specifically talk about object code or binary form.

Ah, that's how you interpret it. I see, since the license in the header
files is akin to the "Old style" MIT (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Old_Style ),
and MIT-alikes normally don't talk about the object code, there seem to be
a difference in interpretation of MIT and MIT-alike licenses as to whether
to include the license/notices with the binaries (Jonathan, the links are
included for someone who will stumble upon this post while searching; I
believe you know what I'm talking about and don't suggest you to sift
through them):
https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/257#issuecomment-183517808
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8161/license-that-requires-attribution-to-end-users
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4058/what-is-the-point-of-including-the-mit-copyright-text-if-you-use-someones-code
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-MIT-license-require-attribution-in-a-binary-only-distribution
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#legacy-license-structure
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12560056
and so on. Both Chrome and Firefox (under windows) include MIT-licenses for
various libraries in their binary distributions and I saw one Huawei's PDF
also doing this (one of them was for STLPort: document "HUAWEI
ME906s-158&ME909s Series Module Open Source Software Notice" if anyone is
interested). As for myself I'm on the "'this software'/'copy' covers
derivative works/objective code"-side, but there doesn't seem to be any
authoritative source on this so we, indeed, go into "talk to your lawyer"
territory and I'm going to leave it at that.

> Those aren't question, they're statements, and I don't even know what
> the fourth one means.
Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say anyway - it was poor
wording on my part. As for the fourth one - imagine function declarations,
std::enable_if, something like factorial<4>::value in constexpr and so on:
things that usually don't result in a meaningful code generations by
themselves.

> But anyway, my personal understanding is that
> none of them is true.
I started with this premise as well, but was met with "you only have to
follow GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Exception" view. Now that's settled, I have no
more questions; there seems to be only two possible conclusions:

a) If your interpretation is correct then the only license to follow with
binary distribution with dynamic linking is GPLv3+GRE;
b) If "this software" covers objective code, then the inclusion of HP/SGI's
copyrights and text is necessary.

Thank you for your time!