| |||||||||||||
The new GCC runtime library exemptionThe new GCC runtime library exemptionPosted Jan 29, 2009 15:27 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547)Parent article: The new GCC runtime library exemption
Since those plugins are not GPL-compatible, they render the compilation process "ineligible" and the resulting code cannot be distributed in combination with the GCC runtime libraries.The way I understand what you wrote in the article, the exception goes away with the ineligible compilation process, but GPLv3 remains. So the resulting code can be distributed under the terms of GPLv3 in combination with the GCC run-time libraries. And free software that happes to have been run through a proprietary optimizing module is allowed, if it's license is GPLv3 compatible (the binary is distributed under the combination of these licenses). The effect is that proprietary plugins cannot be used to compile proprietary software, but they can be used to compile free software.
(Log in to post comments)
The new GCC runtime library exemption Posted Jan 29, 2009 17:52 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Not even that: those using proprietary plugins just need runtime libraries that don't have the new language; they could use the code from old GCC releases, for example. But they'd then have to fork all the language support libraries, which for C++ at least would be a huge task going forward (especially as the C++ word transitions to c++0x).
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 2:35 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Speaking of C++0x, time has run out for Stroustrup's Schroedinger's cat 'x', the box opens this year. Either 'x' will collapse to a concrete 9 (in which case we should be referring to C++09already), or the standard won't be issued in 0x at all.
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 2:50 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the expectation is that it will not be ratified this year (there are too many steps left in the process)
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 4:36 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
No problem. If it comes out next year, just read it as a roman numeral.
But if it comes out in 2011, I guess they'd have to call it C++0xi.
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 5:53 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]
Bah - not roman - hex! C++0xA of course!
Pete
PS: can't believe I'm the only one that saw that... or maybe
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 12:36 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Of course it's hex! I stand corrected. Obvious when you think about it.
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 15:48 UTC (Fri) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] It was probably in 1989 when I read a comment that Fortran 8x would have to use hex digits if it needed any longer. However, the released version was not called Fortran 8A, but Fortran 90.
|
|||||||||||||