[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: LPGL (was "GCC2 merging")
From:       Jason Merrill <jason () cygnus ! com>
Date:       1998-10-16 3:45:02
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> James Mansion <james@westongold.com> writes:

 > (yeah - and can we *please* review the LGPL?  It does not seem to
 > make any practical sense for template systems or C++ inlines in
 > general.)

I agree completely.  The LGPL says that an object file that uses large
inlines (or, presumably, templates) must be distributed under the terms of
Section 6, which says that you must

    a) Accompany the work with ... the complete machine-readable "work that
    uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
    user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
    executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
    that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
    Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
    to use the modified definitions.)

But if the substance of the library is in the form of inlines or templates,
this doesn't make any sense, as there isn't anything to link against; it's
all emitted into the object code along with the library user's code.

I would like to see a variant of the LGPL which does not place any
requirements on a "work that uses the Library".  I want to protect the
library itself, but have the legal requirements on a program that uses the
library be the same as on a program that is compiled with gcc; namely,
none.  This is necessary for the C++ standard library, to make g++ a viable
alternative to proprietary compilers.  This is currently achieved by using
the libgcc exception to the GPL, but I would rather have an LGPL-based
license so that users are not required to use gcc.

This is more than a theoretical issue because SGI would like to cooperate
with us on developing the C++ standard library, and the current license
prevents them from using our code with their compiler.  Their code,
meanwhile is under an X-style license, which does not protect it from
hoarders.  I would like to find a middle ground acceptable to both groups.

Jason

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]