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

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: LPGL (was "GCC2 merging")
From:       joel () OARcorp ! com
Date:       1998-10-16 14:01:03
[Download RAW message or body]



On 15 Oct 1998, Jason Merrill wrote:

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

> 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 a desirable thing which I call the Run-Time GPL. It has
essentially already been used on libgcc, the GNAT run-time. the GUILE
run-time (unsure of this one), and RTEMS.

--joel

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