From: Ben Hutchings (ben.hutchings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-13 05:33:05
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
>
>>libstdc++ is not solely distributed under the GNU GPL - if it was, every
>>program built with it would have to be distributed under GPL as well.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Nonsense (if you mean distribution of "copies" [17 USC 101]; not
> licensing exclusive rights to original and derivative "works"...
> which must be done under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL;
> compilation-vs-derivative distinction aside for a moment). Being
> a mere copyright license (not a contract), the GPL can't override
> the first sale [17 USC 109].
You are surely aware that your idea of what requires a licence (and on
which the GPL can therefore place conditions) is unusual and does not
agree with the intent of most of those distributing under the GPL. I've
stated what I believe to be the case and I don't wish to argue it with
you. Those who are being asked to give permission for inclusion in
libstdc++ can make up their own minds.
Now that I think about it, I seem to remember that contributions to GCC
(of which libstdc++ is part) must have their copyright assigned to the
FSF. If this is correct, it would not be sufficient for copyright
holders to give permission for relicencing. Can you check this, Jonathan?