On 2021-02-03 at 15:50:45, Ansgar wrote: > Hi brian, > > On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 14:31 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > [...] > > Note the phrase "unless that component itself accompanies the > > executable." It's long been my interpretation, as with other > > contributors, that this applies to distribution from the same mirror > > archive. In any event, it's obvious that it applies to the same > > distribution medium, and Debian ships DVD and disk images from its > > infrastructure. > > I'm curious what you think of GPL-2 software linking libraries that > cannot be distributed under terms compatible with the GPL-2 such as > GCC's runtime libraries? > > For example the following libraries are licensed under the GPL-3-or- > later and their source code cannot be distributed under terms of the > GPL-2 (part of gcc): libgcc, libatomic, libstdc++-v3, libobjc, > libgfortran? > > If you think the system library exception should not apply to any > library in Debian, would Debian need to stop linking any GPL-2 software > against any of GCC's runtime libraries?
Yes, Debian would indeed need to do so. It violates the license to distribute, on the whole, a GPLv2 program linked against code which is not compatible with the GPLv2, unless an exception applies (which it does not here). I agree that this is terribly inconvenient, but it's the requirement of the license. Moreover, until last year, it was Debian's position on the matter as well. I believe that in this particular case, clang provides similar libraries that can be used instead, or perhaps the FSF would be willing to add an exception to the license for GPLv2 software. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Houston, Texas, US
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
