On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 15:59, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 15:08:50 +0100 > > Cc: qifan.z...@xpeedic.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > > > > AFAIU, this is accurate if libgcc and libstdc++ are linked statically, > > > > but not if the program is linked to their DLL versions (and therefore > > > > the DLLs must be distributed with the resulting program). In the > > > > latter case, the LGPL exception doesn't apply, and distributing these > > > > DLLs falls under GPL instead. > > > > > > Those libraries are not licensed with the LGPL so I don't know what > > > that has to do with anything. > > > > And the GCC runtime exception makes no distinction between static and > > dynamic linking. > > That's not what RMS told me when I asked him some time ago. He said > that, since libgcc DLL and libstdc++ DLL are basically separate files > and thus separate builds of the libraries, the run-time exception you > pointed to is not applicable to them. Quoting his response back then: > > There is nothing in this exception that would permit distribution > of libgcc itself -- as a separate file -- other than under the GPL. > > (By "this exception" he alluded to the libgcc run-time exception.)
Ah right, I thought you were saying that the software compiled with GCC would be covered by the GPL (and you do seem to be saying that below?). I agree that distributing the libstdc++ libs themselves requires following the GPL, but only for those libs. Not the code that links to them. So if you distribute libstdc++.so you need to provide the source for libstdc++ to anybody that asks for it. But that's doesn't affect your own code, which is unaffected by the GPL whether you link statically or dynamically. > > > Please stop giving bad advice and direct people to read the > > appropriate documentation. > > Why the animosity? I'm trying to help the OP understand the situation > about which they asked. Well they didn't ask about distributing the DLLs :-) > > Please respect opinions of others and don't assume that differing > opinions mean bad advice. I'm talking from experience of distributing > many programs built with MinGW and linked against those libraries. > > > > > Since linking to these libraries statically is not recommended, > > > > especially if the program is a C++ program, the above means in > > > > practice that the two libraries, if a program is linked to them > > > > dynamically, impose GPL. > > > > This is absolutely wrong. > > Not AFAIK, see above. The libraries themselves are licensed under the GPL, not the program that links to them.
