Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: rms says... Message-ID: <1991Feb7.112838.695@robobar.co.uk> Date: 7 Feb 91 11:28:38 GMT References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> <4689@lib.tmc.edu> Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 21 jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > >Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in > >the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files > >edited by Emacs. > > Emacs and GCC: yes. > G++: not when you link in their libraries. And what happens if a future version of the gcc *command* (as opposed to the gcc *compiler*) decides to link in a GPV covered library by default? Suddenly my makefile starts producing GPV covered binaries without any intervention on my part (remember: gcc might have been upgraded by my computer service provider). Yes, I have heard of the LGPL, but there isn't any guarantee that *all* future versions of the gcc *command* will refrain from default linking infected libraries. Maybe there ought to be such a guarantee. -- Ronald Khoo +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)