On 9 August 2015 at 21:31, <noname_AT_inventati.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 07:50:30AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I need to investigate further. But probably I will rather go with a
>> static gold linked against glibc to produce smaller binaries and to be
>> GPL compliant....
>
> I do not understand what the problem is.
>
> It is ok to compile GPL program (gold) with MIT licensed libraries
> (musl). In this case you have a GPL licensed binary `gold'. You can use
> it to link MIT licensed programs and get MIT licensed binaries as
> output. How is it different from using GPLed compiler? BSD systems are
> using GCC without any problems.
I presume that you are referring to the system library exception[0] of GPL?
The concern I have is not about compiling, but about _statically_
linking and distributing binaries that contain mixed license .o's.
Distributing gold with included musl libc might be ok wrt. [0] --
though the question remains how to deal with binaries that would
contain other (L)GPL library portions in a legal way. My proposal to
this problem is, avoid GPL libraries, and only link LGPL library
portions into binaries at the target system, not distributing
pre-linked statically binaries at all in such cases.
[0]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException
BR,
Anselm
Received on Mon Aug 10 2015 - 08:06:44 CEST