Re: Agreed legal opinion on distributing libstdc++

Hi Martin,

Thank you for the response.

In message "Re: [tools-dev] Agreed legal opinion on distributing libstdc++",
Martin Hollmichel wrote...
 >Takashi Ono schrieb:
 >> Hi all,
 >>
 >> I am considering to change recommendable gcc version for mingw port to gcc 3.x.x to 
 >> 4.4.0 but there is a restriction that the use of gcc 4.4.0 mandates dynamic linking 
of 
 >> libgcc and libstdc++.
 >>
 >> There is a concern in mingw comminity that those who would like to include dynamic 
 >> libstdc++ should have a legal opinion to support it or should be ready to 
distribute 
 >> the source code of libstdc++ right at the point of binary distribution.
 >>   
 >see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/bk01pt01ch01s02.html 
 >and http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.html#faq.license for the 
 >details:
 >
 >"2.4.So, what restrictions are there on programs that use the library?
 >None. We encourage such programs to be released as open source, but we 
 >won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise. "

It may not be obvious from this passage that programs that include the library binary 
in its distribution is compliant to the licese terms even though the distributer is not 
ready to distribute the library source. The passage may be only applicable to the 
client code.

MinGW people site the following URL as their concerns. 

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/threads.html#01123

 >
 >Martin
 >
 >
 >> In the meantime, OOo distributions on some un*x platforms are including 
libstdc++.so.6.
 >>
 >> Are there any agreed legal opinion on distributing libstdc++ in OOo projects?
 >>
 >> Takashi Ono ([email protected])
 >>

Takashi Ono ([email protected])