Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST: > >> > (But the configure code also > >> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here, > >> only redistribution is. On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > This is the same principle as config.host giving an error for an attempt > > to build on UWIN host: in both cases, avoid knowingly building something > > undistributable. On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:07:07PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > If we are doing that, we really shouldn't be. > One of the very explicit freedoms in the GPL is to be able to build > versions for internal use that are not publicly distributed. There are two issues: what the GPL permits, and official GCC policy. Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to produce an undistributable binary. That doesn't mean that third parties aren't free to grab the pieces and do it on their own. As IANAL, I don't know if there is any estoppel consequence if we do otherwise (for example, an attorney arguing that quietly generating an undistributable binary means that the binary is distributable after all, therefore other code that is incompatible in the same way can be added, etc), but it seems like it might be a possibility. (Oh, crap, I feel a long amateur lawyer thread coming on. Maybe we need gcc.misc.discuss).
