UnixLib and the GPL
John.Tytgat at aaug.net
Tue Jun 8 11:36:51 PDT 2004
In message <40C589C2.8060509 at dsvr.net>
Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr.net> wrote:
> I would like UnixLib to retain the free for commercial and
> non-commercial use.
> In the last 4 years, UnixLib has gained an increasing code base licensed
> under the GPL (note that this is not the LGPL). The problem is that
> UnixLib is not a shared library and in effect a user is linking their
> non-GPL binary application with a GPL application. This therefore
> affects the distribution terms of the non-GPL binary and potentially
> forces it to be GPL.
I don't see it reasonable to replace the GPL code by BSD or other
licensed code in order to let commercial programs link in UnixLib. At
least, I personally don't want to put any effort in this.
Where I do want to put some effort in, is to have UnixLib as shared library
which would create a couple extra fun opportunities. If that really would
solve your point (IANAL), I think that is a no brainer way-to-go.
Slightly related to this, I think it wouldn't be bad if the current
GCC/UnixLib contributers could agree on a "what's next" agenda. Feedback
of the GCC/UnixLib users would be appreciated. Personally I would like
to see the "APCS-32 & 'float' argument" issue resolved and get GCC 3.3
out. Some work on GCC 3.4 has already been done. I would like to do
code contributions concerning iconv and multibyte support. Any other items
we will tackle ? ELF ? Shared libraries ? GCC producing RISC OS modules ?
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net ARM powered, RISC OS driven
More information about the gcc