Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Some people won't use GCC for imaginary reasons.
Message-ID: <8906052346.AA00997@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 23:46:53 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 65

Please don't publish statements about the GPL or what it implies
unless you understand it properly and quote it correctly.  I suggest
that you (1) ignore what other people have said on this subject on
info-gcc, since most of them are wrong, and (2) verify your
understanding privately with an expert before you express an opinion
based on that understanding.

Here a person (who is not, in general, flaming) intends to restate
our policies to criticize them:

	    Any software developed using Gnu software, ...
	    ..., which is distributed to others must be
	    available to them under the terms of the GPL:  Free, with
	    source, and without any restrictions on redistribution.

    ...BUT - it also seems to mean that if I use gcc to compile my software
    then my software is covered by the GPL.

This is misinformation.  We have never said that software "developed
using" GNU software is covered by the copyleft.  There is nothing
in the GPL about this.  It covers only copying all or part of a
GNU program.

(Such a condition on use would be justifiable ethically, since
hoarding doesn't deserve help.  But it would be bad tactics, and
copyright law wouldn't let us enforce it.  Anyway, we have already
given permission for such use in the GPL, so it is too late to change
our minds.)

He continues,

    i.e., I am including Gnu
    header files and libraries into my code.

This is another inaccuracy: it says in effect that using GCC is
synonymous with including GNU header files and libraries.  In fact,
those are two entirely independent activities.  A compiler is one
thing, and libraries are another, and header files are another.

The only exception to that is the small header files and one library
used automatically with GCC.  However, these are in the public domain,
as you can see if you look at them.  As I've said many times, I felt
those were too small to make sense as a lever to persuade someone to
share a program.

The other GNU libraries are copylefted, and as a result, you can't
distribute an executable linked with them unless you are also
willing to distribute the rest of that program under the copyleft.
However, ordinary use of GCC would not result in use of these
libraries, unless you install them in libc.  You would have
to go out of your way to do such a thing.

I am not certain that including a header file of small definitions is
covered under the copyleft at all.  Including a file containing
functions, or macros generating sizeable pieces of code, would count;
but it isn't clear whether including a typical header results in
copying anything significant into the resulting object file.

    THIS IS THE REASON THAT I (as a seller of commercial software) DON'T
    DARE USE GNU SOFTWARE in any way relating to the products that I ship.
    It is because of this threat of "contamination". [1]

As far as I know, the term "contamination" has no referent in this
situation.  Either your program contains a significant piece of GNU
code or it doesn't.  Its history doesn't matter.