From:	CSBVAX::CSBVAX::MRGATE::"SMTP::WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU::RMS" 14-NOV-1988 03:28
To:	MRGATE::"ARISIA::EVERHART"
Subj:	More confusion on GNU copying conditions


Received: from [128.52.32.7] by prep.ai.mit.edu; Sun, 13 Nov 88 09:17:40 EST
Received: by sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu; Sun, 13 Nov 88 09:22:34 EST
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 88 09:22:34 EST
From: rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Message-Id: <8811131422.AA00325@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
To: info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
Subject: More confusion on GNU copying conditions

    >This is a misconception.  The Gnu license is not transferred to code
    >that is produced by the compilers.
This much is accurate.
				      The libraries (when linked into
    >runtime code) are also not subject to the licensing.

This part is untrue.

Most of the GNU libraries (termcap, malloc, obstacks, libg++, etc.)
are covered by the GNU copying conditions, so any executable file
which contains them is also covered, and cannot be distributed except
on those conditions (which include making the *entire* source
available as free software).

The main exception to this is the tiny library that GCC uses
automatically.  Its functions are too tiny for copyright to apply to
them, so it has no effect on how the output can be used.

    "This really bummed me out. I really like the GNU concept, but I don't like
    my rights to software being taken away by a compiler."

The GNU concept is that software should be shared.  This person seems
to be saying that he likes the GNU concept, except in so far as it
means he has to share software.  Is this paradoxical, or what?
Perhaps he thought the GNU concept was something else.

Due to some vagueness, it is barely possible that he does want to
share the work in question and thinks Bison poses a problem for this.
If so, I believe there is really no problem, but if I am mistaken, I
would like to cooperate in solving it.