No, that's not the plugin exception...
Posted Aug 4, 2009 8:26 UTC (Tue) by
khim (guest, #9252)
In reply to:
No, that's not the plugin exception... by nix
Parent article:
A new GCC runtime library license snag?
ICC's *runtime libraries* are distributed with (incorporated
into) *git binaries* if git binaries compiled with ICC are distributed, in
*exactly* the same way as libgcc is incorporated into git
binaries.
Yes. And still ICC does not have a problem where GCC does. Why? Because
ICC's license forbids distribution (runtime libraries can be redistributed
while ICC itself can not) and so ICC is not distributed on the same
medium as git! This fits the GPL exception to a tee: However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything
that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the
executable.
The *compiler* inserts calls to libgcc into the object file,
and this is then resolved by linking with libgcc.
Yes, but it does not change the fact that parts of libgcc ends up in git
executable. GPL gives no exception for "compiler-inserted calls", instead
it gives exception for "anything that is normally distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
on) of the operating system on which the executable runs" - but this
exception is not valid if "that component itself accompanies the
executable". GCC accompanies the executable while ICC does not - that's
why we have problem with GCC, but not with ICC. Since these parts are
needed to recreate binary they are part of the "complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code" and now the question is: must these
parts be distributed under GPLv2 or do they fall under "special
exception". If they fall under exception then Git can be redistributed
with GCC for sure, if not - then you can not redistribute Git and GCC on
the same medium. Only copyright holder of git can clear this confusion and
FSF is not Git's copyright holder so I can not understand why eveyone waits
for FSF's response...
(
Log in to post comments)