Re: GCC Runtime Licensing (sorry!)

[David Chisnall]

Okay, it's official:

I can't read[1].

Having reread that paragraph, I completely agree with your  
interpretation, this is exactly the kind of exemption I wanted.  Thank  
you very much to the FSF.  Absolutely perfect (when read with a fully- 
awake brain).

Interestingly, this means that you can use clang + LLVM + proprietary  
optimisation passes, but not llvm-gcc + (the same) proprietary  
optimisations.  I don't have a problem with this - it just means that  
if you want proprietary optimisations you don't get to benefit from  
the GCC code.

This is excellent news for Étoilé too, since it means that LanguageKit  
is now able to compile code that is not GPL-compatible[2], and we can  
compile GNUstep with clang without issues (sadly not with llvm-gcc).

I guess this means I've now run out of excuses for not improving the  
GNU runtime...

David

[1] In my defence, I read it first it before my first cup of coffee...

[2] Only an issue when using it in static-compiler mode and  
distributing the binaries.  The JIT mode was already exempt from this  
since the GPL is a distribution license and doesn't apply if you don't  
distribute the result, which you never do with JIT'd code.

On 1 Apr 2009, at 12:31, Nicola Pero wrote:

> > > 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.
> >
> > As I read it, this means that the exemption only applies to code  
> > compiled with GCC.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I got the opposite impression.
>
> It says
>
> "A Compilation Process is "Eligible" if it is done using GCC, alone  
> or with other GPL-compatible software,
> or if it is done without using any work based on GCC."
>
> So, for example, compiling using LLVM, which I think uses no work  
> based on GCC, would be "Eligible".
> And then the "Grant of Additional Permission" applies.
>
> Considering this comes from the FSF, it sounds like a very open  
> licensing model.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev