* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:31PM CEST: > > 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.
FWIW, the UWIN change was enabled on 2001-01-09, this is the corresponding discussion: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00415.html>, and this is the general reasoning behind it: the end of <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00562.html>, and the begining of <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-01/msg00577.html>. It would be nice (and IMVHO fully sufficient) if the configure error which was suggested would state the reason for the error, and also point the user to the way out, i.e., obtaining a non-GPLv2 version of polylib. > (Oh, crap, I feel a long amateur lawyer thread coming on. I hope not. I was merely unaware of the UWIN precedent decision. Cheers, Ralf
