Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!ibmarc!drake
From: drake@ibmarc.uucp (Sam Drake)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Query: Status of Mach cleanout?
Message-ID: <1030@ks.UUCP>
Date: 23 Aug 89 20:19:15 GMT
References: <12720001@eecs.nwu.edu> <1311000001@upba> <9056@uw-june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@ibmarc.UUCP
Reply-To: drake@ibmarc.UUCP (Sam Drake)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose
Lines: 13

At the Denver C++ conference someone (presumably the author) gave a 
presentation on the G++ class library.  He did a good job of getting
the audience all excited about the functions in the library, but then
burst the bubble by pointing out that since the library came under
the copy-left, any programs that used the library would also have to
come under the copy-left's provisions.  As I recall, the author
seemed dismayed at this implication of the license.  Is that still
the case?  In this case, there IS no other library that could be
linked in, and so shipping the application un-linked doesn't work.

just curious,

Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center