From: Ben Hutchings (ben.hutchings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-13 05:33:05
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>libstdc++ is not solely distributed under the GNU GPL - if it was, every
>>program built with it would have to be distributed under GPL as well.
> Nonsense (if you mean distribution of "copies" [17 USC 101]; not
> licensing exclusive rights to original and derivative "works"...
> which must be done under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL;
> compilation-vs-derivative distinction aside for a moment). Being
> a mere copyright license (not a contract), the GPL can't override
> the first sale [17 USC 109].
You are surely aware that your idea of what requires a licence (and on
which the GPL can therefore place conditions) is unusual and does not
agree with the intent of most of those distributing under the GPL. I've
stated what I believe to be the case and I don't wish to argue it with
you. Those who are being asked to give permission for inclusion in
libstdc++ can make up their own minds.
Now that I think about it, I seem to remember that contributions to GCC
(of which libstdc++ is part) must have their copyright assigned to the
FSF. If this is correct, it would not be sufficient for copyright
holders to give permission for relicencing. Can you check this, Jonathan?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk