Re: GPL and statically linking with non-GPL standard C library

[David Kastrup]

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> In article <x5oeobyq04.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> > 
> > > In article <x5u0y3yt3x.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <x5n03v2vdi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  
> > > > > <dak@gnu.org> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > -ap85@georgetown.edu (Alexander R. Pruss) writes:
> > > > > -
> > > > > -> I'd like to distribute GPL code compiled with Borland's C compiler,
> > > > > -> and statically linked with Borland's C library.  Is this permitted?
> > > > > -
> > > > > -According to what?  The GPL clearly tells you that you have
> > > > > -to add the
> > > > > -source code of your stuff.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think you missed the point. The OP wants to compile and statically 
> > > > > link 
> > > > > GPL code with a proprietary compiler and library.
> > > > 
> > > > Which was the only way to get binaries for GPL programs at one time.
> > > > What point am I missing?
> > > 
> > > They were typically distributed as source code, not pre-linked
> > > executables.
> > 
> > Come off it.  Of _course_ for example the GNU utilities for
> > DOS/Windows were distributed as binaries as well as source code.  And
> > as binaries that would need proprietary static libraries to link with
> > if you wanted to compile them, and proprietary compilers.
> 
> I wasn't talking about DOS/Windows.

So it would be your contention that every distribution of binaries
was illegal when the recipient did not happen to have the compiler and
libraries around used for compiling them.

> I was talking about the period before the GNU utilities were ported
> to those systems.  Source distributions were the most common way to
> distribute free software in the 80's.

Oh, come off it.  I happened to be living in that time.  It was the
time before autoconf.  Compiling any piece of software, in particular
GNU software, was a major feat.  Which is why compiled versions were
often passed around, once somebody managed to do all the work.

> > Static libraries are not "available with the OS" without a
> > development system.
> 
> I was talking in the past tense -- about what it was like in the
> mid-80's when GNU started and the GPL was written.  Most Unix
> systems came with C compilers and full libraries.

Guess what?  I've been working with Unix systems in the 80s.


But enough of the weaseling around.

Is it your contention that every distribution of GPL software with
binaries included was illegal on proprietary systems not usually
coming with the compiler and static system libraries?

Yes or no?

If yes, then distributing Emacs binaries compiled with mingcc is
illegal, as long as you don't distribute the compiler and everything
it links with in source as well.

If no, then why would the Borland compiler's system libraries of the
OP not be permitted under the GPL?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum