Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)

On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
> pluknet wrote:
>> I found this article today. It answers some questions about GPLv3.
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> Indeed this is exactly what i said, there are exemptions for code that
> the compiler brings into the executable (notably this is particularly
> the case for g++) such that using gcc has absolutely no bearing on the
> license of the resulting binary.

The relevant bit I saw from that page was:

> As long as you use an Eligible Compilation Process, then you have  
> permission to take the Target Code that GCC generates and propagate  
> it “under terms of your choice.”  If you did use GPL-incompatible  
> software in conjunction with GCC during the Compilation Process, you  
> would not be able to take advantage of this permission. Since all of  
> the object code that GCC generates is derived from these GPLed  
> libraries, that means you would be required to follow the terms of  
> the GPL when propagating any of that object code. You could not use  
> GCC to develop your own GPL-incompatible software.


Evidently, the FSF is now claiming that all object code produced from  
GCC 4.2.2 and later is GPLv3-licensed, and only their exception  
permits you to distribute executables compiled using an "Eligible  
Compilation Process" under the terms of some other license.

I wonder if they make this claim even if -nostartfiles, -nostdlib and/ 
or -nodefaultlibs options are used?

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck