* Robert Dewar: > b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly > include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not > lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF policy. If I wanted legal advice, I'd ask a lawyer, and rely on that advice (to the extent that is possible), even if it is at odds with what the FSF or the GCC developers presumably want (like an effective copyleft for GCC with modules). It seems to me that the new GCC run-time library license has the side effect of forcing GPLed software to upgrade to GPL version 3 to remain redistributable in compiled form. If this is not your intent (as GCC developers), I think the Steering Committee should ask the FSF for official clarification on this matter. I'd also like to know what we should do with the Objective Caml compiler in Debian, by the way. My main issue is that I don't see how, under the same set of policies, it can be acceptable to link a GPLv2 program to GPLv3 system libraries covered by the GCC library exception, but it's not okay to link another GPLv2 program to Apache-2.0-licensed system libraries. Both library licenses do not infect the program, and both licenses are incompatible with the GPLv2 (according to the FSF). Or am I nuts and this mismatch does not exist? The problem with "go ask the FSF" is that they don't react in a reasonable time frame (beyond an auto-ack from their trouble ticket system).
