Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!decwrl!bothner
From: bothner@decwrl.dec.com (Per Bothner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: g++ vs. cfront 2.0 in the Real World
Message-ID: <1561@bacchus.dec.com>
Date: 11 Jul 89 04:50:34 GMT
References: <799@redsox.bsw.com> <6590190@hplsla.HP.COM>
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab
Lines: 33

In article <6590190@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes:
>>As with GCC, you can use the G++ *compiler* to compiler your code
>>into binary, without having to release the source code.
>I've heard this before, but I've yet to see Stallman verify this in black and
>white terms.

Stallman has verified this till (I assume) he is sick of it:
Copyleft does not (and cannot) restrict the use of gcc (or emacs) as *tools*.
That is, if you compile your program with gcc (or g++), it is still
your program, as long as you only use "essential" run-time support,
such as crt0, 32-bit multiplication on 16-bit machines, etc.
However, if you link in libg++, Copyleft applies, and you must
distrubute source to your entire application. The same will
apply to the (unreleased) libgcc.
There may be a fine line between these cases, but it should be a
trivial exercise to stay on the paranoid side of the line.

There are also various ways of circumventing Copyleft, but they
make things slightly more inconvenient for your constomers.
They also violate the spirit and moral intent of copyleft,
but are perfectly legal.

Note that NeXT uses gcc as their production compiler, releasing
it as part of the system, and using it to compile their system.
Jobs is a "software hoarder" who does not share RMS's ideals,
and you may be sure their lawyers studied the ramifiactions is
depth. (They also reportedly use one of the circumventions.)

This is my personal analysis, having followed FSF for many years.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
Western Software Lab, Digital Equipment, 100 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto CA 94301
bothner@wsl.dec.com ...!decwrl!bothner