GPL question: Use gcc to build proprietary software
Hi, I got a question regarding GPL while migrating our code to gcc4.1.0. In order to make sure that our proprietary code is not exposed to GPL restrictions by using gcc, I run my scripts to check every source file and included header files that are built into gcc essential libraries such as libgcc and libsupc++ etc. While most files have "GPL + GPL exception clause" in their headers, there are still some files that only have GPL without exception clause. By linking with these libraries,it's possible that we insert copyrightable material into the final executable. My questions are: 1> Is it legally safe to link with these libraries to propietary software? Does FSF have any formal statement to clarify this issue? 2> Who should we contact to add GPL exception clauses to those files? Here are the problematic files I found that only have GPL without exception clauses in gcc4.1.0: libsupc++: vec.c system.h ggc.h vec.h coretypes.h tree.h toplev.h ansidecl.h libiberty.h demangle.h getopt.h dyn-string.h libgcc and libgcc_eh: coretypes.h dwarf2.h ibgconv: coretypes.h gconv-io.c libmudflap and libmudflapth: .../ada/types.h libbfd(used by gnu ld and as 2.16.1): init.c rtl.h expr.h cp-tree.h flags.h output.h except.h target.h raise.h cpplib.h internal.h mkdeps.h Thanks! Christina __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: GPL question: Use gcc to build proprietary software
Mike, Thank you for your reply. I will file a PR shortly. Since we are on a very tight schedule to migrate to gcc4.1.0, we cannot wait until gcc4.2 to be released. But before we can roll out this compiler, we need to have some written statement from FSF that says it's legally safe to link with these libraries even with those problematic files. Who should I contact for such a statement? Thanks again! Christina --- Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:28 PM, xiaoyi wang wrote: > > In order to make sure that our proprietary code is > not exposed to > > GPL restrictions by using gcc, > > Thanks for the audit. I'm getting the feeling that > we should > introduce features into the files and give hard > compilation errors > when the rules are violated to help ensure that we > don't regress in > this area. :-( > > > 1> Is it legally safe to link with these libraries > to propietary > > software? Does FSF have any formal statement to > clarify this issue? > > 2> Who should we contact to add GPL exception > clauses to those files? > > Ultimately, us. It is a bug that needs addressing. > > > Here are the problematic files I found that only > have > > GPL without exception clauses in gcc4.1.0: > > Please file a PR for them. I think it should be > marked as a release > blocker for 4.2, and we should fix any problems in > release branches. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
