Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!dd26+
From: dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <0bges4W00WBw8Lr6xX@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 91 13:56:20 GMT
References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> <4689@lib.tmc.edu>,
	<1991Feb7.112838.695@robobar.co.uk>
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 10
In-Reply-To: <1991Feb7.112838.695@robobar.co.uk>

ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes:
> 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.

I don't see how there can possibly be such a guarantee.  The only case
where I can see this happening is if a vendor provided you with such a
system, which the FSF can't prevent or make guarantees about.
-- 
Doug DeJulio