From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 28 18:50:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7583B1065730 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:50:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586A48FC1E for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:50:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2B0518B8AD; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 319B245C0002; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:34 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807130-a8090bb000000fcd-96-4980a8fad2d3 Received: from cswiger1.apple.com (cswiger1.apple.com [17.227.140.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 0653428095; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <7508A5B5-C6D2-498A-AEA1-D84E85F1D743@mac.com> From: Chuck Swiger To: Michel Talon In-Reply-To: <20090128155340.GA75143@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:33 -0800 References: <20090128155340.GA75143@lpthe.jussieu.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:50:35 -0000 On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Michel Talon wrote: > pluknet wrote: >> I found this article today. It answers some questions about GPLv3. >> >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html > > Indeed this is exactly what i said, there are exemptions for code that > the compiler brings into the executable (notably this is particularly > the case for g++) such that using gcc has absolutely no bearing on the > license of the resulting binary. The relevant bit I saw from that page was: > As long as you use an Eligible Compilation Process, then you have =20 > permission to take the Target Code that GCC generates and propagate =20= > it =93under terms of your choice.=94 If you did use GPL-incompatible =20= > software in conjunction with GCC during the Compilation Process, you =20= > would not be able to take advantage of this permission. Since all of =20= > the object code that GCC generates is derived from these GPLed =20 > libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of =20 > the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use =20= > GCC to develop your own GPL-incompatible software. Evidently, the FSF is now claiming that all object code produced from =20= GCC 4.2.2 and later is GPLv3-licensed, and only their exception =20 permits you to distribute executables compiled using an "Eligible =20 Compilation Process" under the terms of some other license. I wonder if they make this claim even if -nostartfiles, -nostdlib and/=20= or -nodefaultlibs options are used? Regards, --=20 -Chuck