No, that's not the plugin exception...

Posted Aug 4, 2009 8:26 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #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...

No, that's not the plugin exception...

Posted Aug 4, 2009 21:05 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Oh, hell, it's *that* ugly part of the nasty GPLv2 exception. I quite
missed that.

*sigh*

No, that's not the plugin exception...

Posted Aug 7, 2009 13:27 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

Does the ICC runtime library allow for relicensing under GPL version 2? That's what needs to happen for the problem to go away. The component that needs to fall under the exception is the ICC runtime library. But that code is injected into the program at compilation time. So that component accompanies the executable, which means it doesn't fall under the exception. Therefore, the ICC runtime library needs to be 1) open source, and 2) licensed under the GPL version 2. I don't believe that is the case, so Git -- compiled with any recent compiler -- cannot be legally distributed.