Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <2053@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 89 20:22:39 GMT
References: <799@redsox.bsw.com> <6590194@hplsla.HP.COM> <318@gt-eedsp.gatech.edu>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 21

In article <318@gt-eedsp.gatech.edu> baud@gt-eedsp.UUCP (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:
>Jim has hit the proverbial nail on the head. What exactly are the standard
>parts of the g++ library and how do restrictions on them mesh with the
>stated goals of the GNU project?

Might I suggest to potential developers for GNU a solution to the libg++
problem:

	Redevelop libg++ from scratch. Explicitly make it *PUBLIC DOMAIN*.
	This would solve those nasty copyright problems.

Leave the code to the compiler and development tools copylefted.
Just make sure that the libraries are public domain. Make sure
that code stubs inserted by code generators (like YACC) are public
domain. I think this will still preserve the spirit of GNU.

Copylefting library code simply insures that nobody will use them.
It's even worse than when some misguided compiler vendors tried
to charge royalties for products compiled by their compilers. This practice
was soundly rejected by the marketplace (though every once in a while,
somebody tries it again!).