Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" Message-ID: <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: 26 Sep 89 23:23:21 GMT References: <980@mrsvr.UUCP> Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 23 >Only using the libg++ library does the GNU copyleft problem arise. I dispute this. [but note I'm not a lawyer so what I'm really saying is go ask your lawyer which bring me back to my original statement that using g++ on commercial work entangles you in copyright issues so why not just use AT&T's [or other commercial] compiler.] I believe _main and builtin_new, and .h files at the very least, also complicate the issue. Even the templates by which C++ code get converted to a particular CPU's assembly language could cloud these issues. Stallman's statements not withstanding, I do not believe issue of copyright infringement where a compiler "automatically" injects a greater or lessor amount of its own source code into a user's work to be compiled/assembled has been legally tested. "Fair Usage" rules certainly apply here, but what is "fair use" when an author publicly states he doesn't really want his work used for commercial purposes? ...I suspect the courts might find a very narrow view of "fair use" in those circumstances. ..........In any case, if you want to use g++ for commercial work only a competent patent/intellectual property lawyer can decide for you and your company. Just make darned sure you and the lawyer know the intimate details of how g++, .h files, porting to multiple machines, etc, work.