Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!rose!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: G++ copyleft
Keywords: Free, G++
Message-ID: <16540@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 89 16:57:16 GMT
References: <6224@lynx.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Distribution: na
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <6224@lynx.UUCP> vik@lynx.UUCP (Vikram Sohal) writes:
> What's all this that I hear about people having to give away software products
> developed with G++ because the libraries are "copyleft" by GNU? If true, I 
> think that this will deter many companies from using G++ to develop commercial
> products.

Sigh... this is a well-worn issue.  Yes, it has deterred people.

The copyleft issue is not with G++ per se, but with the library of run-time
functions it calls and G++ compiles calls to.  The FSF claims its usual
copyleft on any code incorporating the libraries, which means that anything
linked with the libraries falls under the copyleft.  This does *not*
oblige anyone to give the code (object or source) away, but only obliges them
to sell tham as a unit, and without further restricting the modification and
resale privileges of the buyer.

Persoanlly, I think it would be better to use the same terms as commercial
compilers, which do not claim copyright on code containing the libraries,
in order to maintain "holier-than-thou"ness if nothing else.  But that's
a subject on which there is some debate.
-- 
	-Colin