UnixLib and the GPL

John Tytgat 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 mailing list