Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> writes: > Russ Allbery dixit: >> If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license >> would change something about libgcc's license.
> dietlibc is GPL, so a derivate is also GPL. > The mksh-static and lksh binaries, when linked against dietlibc, consist > of dietlibc, libgcc and mksh derived source code, but the final binary > is the work whose exact sources must be available. If this license analysis is correct, then we have to do this for every binary on the system that's covered by the GPL v2, since I believe some stub code from libgcc is *always* included statically in every binary, even if the binary is built dynamically. (Or at least there's a good chance that this will happen.) I've never heard the FSF, who are responsible for all the licenses in question, interpret the licenses this way. So I'm quite dubious that this analysis is correct. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ppwho9v6....@windlord.stanford.edu
