Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4878 gnu.g++.bug:930
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!thorin!jason!tuck
From: tuck@jason.cs.unc.edu (Russ Tuck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++.bug
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <9741@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 89 18:31:23 GMT
References: <980@mrsvr.UUCP> <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: tuck@jason.UUCP (Russ Tuck)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 29

In article <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> mike@thor.stolaf.edu () writes:
>
>1.  You can use g++ for commercial work.
>
>2.  You cannot use libg++ in commercial products without bringing
>    them within the scope of the GNU license.  We may change this in
>    the future, if we think that is the only way GNU will be accepted
>    into widespread use.  But we will look long and hard at such a
>    change first.

Until g++ 1.36 changed the way it links programs, this made sense to me.
In effect, it says there's no copyleft on your executable unless you
explicitly link in something copylefted (like libg++.a).

However, g++ 1.36 now requires "-lg++" to link ANY program.  So the above
rules now make it impossible to use g++ without making the executable
copylefted.  (g++ compiles "main()" to include a call to "___main()",
which is contained in libg++.a.)

I consider this a bug in g++, or a dramatic policy change.

(This isn't an immediate issue for me, since I'm currently at a Univ.
and don't charge money when I share my code anyway.  But I'm still
surprised at the change.)

Russ Tuck		               tuck@cs.unc.edu
UNC Dept. of Computer Science          ...!mcnc!unc!tuck
CB# 3175 Sitterson Hall
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175, USA        (919) 962-1755 or 962-1932