Re: Questions on proprietary program using gcc libraries

[jim.brown]

I am still not clear on the answer to my question. I've found
thousands of notes on the unsnet archives and I'll keep looking.
Here is some more information and a hope for a more definitive answer.

David Kastrup wrote:
> "jim.brown" <jim.brown@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> > I've searched this forum and did not find any guidance.
> >
> > I am building a proprietary shared library with gcc. The normal
> > C++ runtime routines (memcpy etc.) are dynamically linked.
>
>
> I am assuming that all libraries in question are under the LGPL.

The libraries I need are libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++.so.5
(from gcc 3.2.2).  Looking at the header file stdc++.h, libstdc++
is GPL not LGPL. Is that true? If it is then I assume that I
cannot use gcc to build my shared library for sale. Is that true?
Your reply to #1 below seems to say that even if libstdc++ is
GPL, I can sell a product that uses it so long as I make both the
library and the source available to my buyers. Is this right?


> > 1. Can I sell my application since it uses the C runtime.
>
>
> You can sell applications including GPLed or LGPLed code all you want
> to.  The GPL does not restrict the price you can demand, but your
> customers may copy and sell appropriately licensed pieces themselves,
> if they want to.
>
>
> > 2. If I sell it, am I correct that it falls under the LGPL license.
>
>
> No.  The point of the LGPL is that linking in a manner that allows the
> customer to independently upgrade the library (such as by dynamic
> linking) does not make any demands on how the complete result needs to
> get licensed.

Understood - thanks.

> > 3. If the person who buys does not have gcc,
>
>
> That's not your fault, but you should point out where to get it.
>
>
> >    can I distribute the C++ runtime libraries libgcc_s.so.1
> >    libstdc++.so.5 with my product.
>
>
> If accompanied with the source of the library according to the LGPL,
> yes.
>
>
> >    If so, how do I reference their license?
>
>
> It will be part of the source package.

Understood - thanks again.

> > Thanks for the help. I have been unable to interpret the LGPL by myself.
>
>
> Have you actually read it?  Where is it unclear?

I've read it several times. It's not that the document is unclear,
it's that I'm having trouble seeing how it applies in my case.