Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> writes: > Quoting Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com>: > >> Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> writes: >> >>> So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent >>> Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you >>> make sure that they either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they >>> incorporate pieces of it. You'd only need to make sure that you >>> compile these with an Eligible Compilation Process. >> >> No. That would imply that the runtime library exception license >> somehow releases you from all other licenses on the code, which is not >> the case. If your program is derived from code which is under the GPL >> without the runtime library exception, you must obey the full GPL. > > But if code that is not an Independent Module may be added, and the > conveying has to be consistent with the licensing of that code, what > purpose does > the mentioning of Independent Modules in the Grant of Additional Permission > serve? It seems you are saying that 'Independent Modules' could be read > as 'any other code you like' to give the same meaning, only more clearly.
Yes, I believe that "Independent Modules" is intended to mean "any code." However, it needs to be careful to not grant additional rights to other parts of gcc itself. And in any case the only code which it can control is code which uses the runtime library--the runtime library license can not say anything about code which does not use the runtime library. I expect that that is why it wound up being written the way it was. Ian
