On 9 August 2015 at 21:31, <non...@inventati.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 07:50:30AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> I need to investigate further. But probably I will rather go with a >> static gold linked against glibc to produce smaller binaries and to be >> GPL compliant.... > > I do not understand what the problem is. > > It is ok to compile GPL program (gold) with MIT licensed libraries > (musl). In this case you have a GPL licensed binary `gold'. You can use > it to link MIT licensed programs and get MIT licensed binaries as > output. How is it different from using GPLed compiler? BSD systems are > using GCC without any problems.
I presume that you are referring to the system library exception[0] of GPL? The concern I have is not about compiling, but about _statically_ linking and distributing binaries that contain mixed license .o's. Distributing gold with included musl libc might be ok wrt. [0] -- though the question remains how to deal with binaries that would contain other (L)GPL library portions in a legal way. My proposal to this problem is, avoid GPL libraries, and only link LGPL library portions into binaries at the target system, not distributing pre-linked statically binaries at all in such cases. [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException BR, Anselm
