[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:       1998-10-23 16:05:52
[Download RAW message or body]



On 23 Oct 1998, Jason Merrill wrote:

> Sounds reasonable.  What do people think of this for C++?  I'd like to have
> one phrasing for both headers and .cc files.
> 
>   As a special exception, if other files use inline functions or
>   instantiate templates from this file, or you compile this file and link
>   it with other files to produce an executable, this file does not by
>   itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
>   Public License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other
>   reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General
>   Public License.

I must have slept through some of this.  :)  I should have posted the
RTEMS version of this paragraph.  It is based on the GNAT one:

As a special exception, including RTEMS header files in a file,
instantiating RTEMS generics or templates, or linking other files
with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not
however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be
covered by the GNU Public License.

--joel

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