Quoting Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com>:
Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> writes:
Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not help here,
since we want to allow people to link programs containing
non-GPL-compatible
code simultanously against libgloss and libgcc.
I don't see anything which prohibits them from doing so.
That would be the Berne Copyright convention. I don't see anything
which allows them distributing the resulting binaries.
The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
certain conditions apply. It does not say that you do not have
permission if certain other conditions apply. Therefore, if certain
conditions apply, you have permission. It is not necessary for the
license to say "oh, and if you stand on your head, you still have
permission.'
The permission is specific to a work of Target Code. Assembly source files
are not Target Code, hence the permission does not apply.
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler.
No, it says that you can only do that if every file of the proprietary code
is written or generated in a high level language, and uses the GCC runtime.
The word "only" is your interpolation. It does not appear in the
runtime license.
It is a necessary condition for all the conditions of the exception to
apply that all of the proprietary code is written or generated in a high
level language, and uses the GCC runtime. Only the one exception is
granted. Hence, "only" is not an interpolation, it is a corollary.
