From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Mar 15 12: 9:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.thuntek.net (srv1.thuntek.net [206.206.98.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAD11503E for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:09:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwilde1@thuntek.net) Received: from thuntek.net (abq-061.thuntek.net [207.66.52.61]) by srv1.thuntek.net (8.9.1/8.6.12TNT1.0) with ESMTP id NAA22835; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:08:43 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36ED68D6.C7820CAD@thuntek.net> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:08:54 -0700 From: Donald Wilde X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: License nightmare References: <36ED1F21.12E97D6D@thuntek.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Donald Wilde writes: > > If GNU gcc is GPL, is FreeBSD in violation, or is it just 'including > > source' and not 'using' that requires disclosure of sources? > > Where did you get the idea that we did not distribute the gcc sources? > No, I mean the sources of code that is generated with gcc. The GPL could be interpreted to mean that binaries created using gcc as a tool are subject to the license. If I'm just having bad dreams needlessly, please tell me so. :-) -- oooOOO O O O o * * * * * * o ___ _________ _________ _________ ___==__ V_=_=_DW ===--- Don Wilde dwilde1@thuntek.net [ = = ] /oo0000oo-oo--oo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-oo---oo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message