GCC Runtime Licensing

[David Ayers]

Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2009, 00:48 +0100 schrieb David Chisnall:
> >> Has anyone heard anything from the FSF about relicensing the GNU
> >> runtime?  It is currently GPL with an exemption that only applies if
> >> code is compiled with GCC.  I was told about a year ago that it would
> >> be moved to the same exemption as libc (which allows linking of any
> >> code), but haven't heard anything since then.  I'm not really
> >> interested in working on adding Objective-C 2 support to the GNU
> >> runtime until this change has taken place.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I highly doubt (and I wouldn't support) a re- 
> > licensing
> > of the GNU runtime as a whole.  I was merely suggesting dual-licensing
> > the files which you'd like contribute yet retain under an MIT license.
> 
> Currently, the GPL exemption for GNU libobjc only applies to code  
> compiled with GCC.  If we compile GNUstep with any other compiler,  
> then this exemption does not hold.  Since new versions of the runtime  
> are GPLv3, this means we can't, for example, link PopplerKit (GPLv2- 
> only) with it, and we can't link (for example) LuceneKit (Apache  
> license) against the older GPLv2 version.
> 
> GNU libc has a different exemption, which does not specify the  
> compiler.  I was told a year ago that GNU libobjc would move to using  
> the same exemption, once the phrasing was worked out for the GPLv3.   
> This will allow libobjc to be used in exactly the same way GNU libc is  
> currently used.
> 
> If this change isn't going to happen, then there is not much point  
> working to support the GNU runtime with clang and, since there is  
> little chance of GCC ever adding new features to Objective-C, there is  
> no point in my adding new features (properties, non-fragile ivars) to  
> GNU libobjc.

Indeed I believe this concern has just been addressed:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00005.html

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
David