Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!imagen!atari!apratt
From: apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re^2: GNU programs, copyleft (was Re: IS MT UUCP Legal??) (long)
Message-ID: <1603@atari.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 89 18:57:12 GMT
References: <4456ee6c.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <1602@atari.UUCP> <20384@cup.portal.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Atari Corp., Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 27

I take back what I said about GCC -- I guess I misunderstood it.  My
excuse is that I only had the COPYING file to go by, and not the
interpretations and clarifications of it.  ("RMS has defined derivative
works as those containing FSF source code" is an example of something I
couldn't know from the license agreement.)

I expect I'll have some trouble figuring out what parts of GCC I can
use in software for sale -- the library for the ST is a hodgepodge of
PD stuff (derived from dlibs), GCC-distributed stuff (under copyleft),
and the PML (portable math library) which is free but kinda slow, being
written in C.

I'm glad I posted what I did, because it started this discussion and
has started to set me straight about what you can sell and what you
can't.

However, I'm still looking for definitive statements, not examples and
guidelines.  What are the rules?  I'm not talking about distributing
the compiler; I'm talking about distributing code compiled with the
compiler. Pretend I didn't post anything earlier, just answer the
question: under what circumstances can I use GCC to create a program
without having to make anything but the executable available, under
copyleft?

============================================
Opinions expressed above do not necessarily	-- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.	  ...ames!atari!apratt