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