[lug] Change in GNU C++ license from 2.96 to 3.2

[D. Stimits]

Scott Herod wrote:

> I know this is like beating an undead horse, but I noticed that the
> license statement at the top of the C++ header files changed from 2.96 to
> 3.2.  In particular the last paragraph of the 2.96 version says:
>
> // As a special exception, if you link this library with files
> // compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does not
> cause
> // the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
> License.
> // This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
> // the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>
> While in 3.2 it says:
>
> // As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free
> software
> // library without restriction.  Specifically, if other files instantiate
> // templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you
> compile
> // this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
> // file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
> // the GNU General Public License.  This exception does not however
> // invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered
> by
> // the GNU General Public License.
>
> Does that knotty little word "free" mean that the C++ compiler for gcc 3.2
> can't be used for commercial applications?  I confess to some confusion
> since the FSF has been so careful to define what they mean by "free" but
> this sentence seems rather ambiguous.  It strikes me as something that
> wasn't considered particularly well.


This smells like a good topic for a revisit by the intellectual property 
attornies :P

Seriously though, I think there is no way to know how it really is 
interpreted until it goes to court. On the other hand, to me, it sounds 
like they wanted to clarify the situation with templates, which are kind 
of "odd" when deciding who's code it is. I don't know about the other 
changes, but I *like* the mention that the template code of STL portion 
is now explicitly stated that no viral-nature is applied to your product 
by using templates or macros. The fact of a template being used is 
guaranteed to not be part of the discussion now, though all the other 
merits still seem to be considered.

D. Stimits, stimits AT comcast DOT net