[v3] Re: libstdc++ license

[Loren James Rittle]

In article < Pine.SOL.3.91.1010625141005.13684A-100000@taarna.cygnus.com >
you write:
>
> I agree with Nathan, and would like to see Phil's patch re-applied. Gaby? 
> Jason? Phil? Loren?

Since you asked me explicitly (and, as always, only giving my personal
opinion here and, BTW, I'm not a lawyer for a reason...):

I have no problem contributing changes to the STL files as they are
currently copyrighted.  I have no problem contributing changes to the
STL files with the extra FSF copyright attached.  As a user of g++
(especially one that only gives away source code never binaries), I
have no problem using the STL files either way.

Thus, I have no problem with Phil's patch.  However, I think the FSF
might.  If you read the existing copyright closely, you will note that
it contains a form of the so-called "advertising clause".  If my
memory serves me (and there are no special arrangements with HP and
SGI that I am currently unaware of), then adding the GPL+"special
exception" to these files should trigger the same reaction from the
FSF as it did with the BSD license containing those same terms; which
is: a loud pronouncement that an advertising clause is incompatible
with the GPL.

The upshot is that I think an FSF copyright lawyer should be consulted
before Phil's patch is re-applied.  We should also consider (or let an
FSF lawyer consider) whether it is our duty to inform users of
libstdc++ that they must include the HP and SGI copyright statements
in any documentation they ship with a system built against the STL we
include in libstdc++.  I.e. unless the FSF got special permission that
those clauses don't apply to our end-users, we can't remove that
burdon for the users of the library.

Regards,
Loren
-- 
Loren J. Rittle
Senior Staff Software Engineer, Distributed Object Technology Lab
Networks and Infrastructure Research Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
rittle@rsch.comm.mot.com, KeyID: 2048/ADCE34A5, FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672