On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 6:48 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@orcam.me.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > > while this one: > > > > > > > > * As a special exception, if you link this library with files > > > > * compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause > > > > * the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public > > > > License. > > > > * This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why > > > > * the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public > > > > License. > > > > > > > > does not seem to be in the SPDX exception list. It is very similar to > > > > `GNU-compiler-exception` except it specifically mentions GCC instead > > > > of saying "a GNU compiler". > > > > > > https://spdx.org/licenses/GNU-compiler-exception.html > > > > > > is exactly this. > > > > No, because `GNU-compiler-exception` as defined here > > https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/exceptions/GNU-compiler-exception.xml > > assumes use of the term "GCC" rather than "a GNU compiler". > > I don't know what the legal status of the statement referred is, however > the original exception as published[1] by FSF says: > > '"GCC" means a version of the GNU Compiler Collection, with or without > modifications, governed by version 3 (or a specified later version) of the > GNU General Public License (GPL) with the option of using any subsequent > versions published by the FSF.'
> which I think makes it clear that "GCC" is a collection of "GNU compilers" > and therefore the two terms are synonymous to each other for the purpose > of said exception (in the old days "GCC" stood for "GNU C Compiler", but > the old meaning makes no sense anymore now that we have compilers for Ada, > Fortran and many other languages included in GCC). > > NB up to date versions of CRT code refer to the exception as published > rather than pasting an old version of its text: > > 'Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional > permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version > 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.' > > References: > > [1] "GCC Runtime Library Exception", version 3.1, > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html> I think we're basically talking past each other. The definition of "GCC" in the GCC runtime library exception 3.1 is irrelevant because that file does not refer to that exception. In SPDX, license (and exception) identifiers are precisely defined. Unless I'm missing something there is no official SPDX identifier that corresponds to this text: As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. I'm not personally a major supporter of SPDX and I'm the last person who would want to be associated with SPDX pedanticism but it's a standard and if the Linux kernel project is going to use it IMO it should conform to that standard, otherwise you're basically making ad hoc definitions of pseudo-SPDX expressions or redefinitions of already-defined SPDX identifiers, which seems to defeat the purpose of using SPDX expressions at all. Under that standard, there is currently no SPDX identifier representing the above text (as far as I can tell). The solution is either to propose a modification of `GNU-compiler-exception` so that "GCC" is accepted as an alternative to "a GNU compiler", or to propose a new exception to be added to SPDX's exception list, or to use a custom-defined `AdditionRef-` identifier. Richard
