"Open" Software Foundation: GNU

[cliff at hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM]

idall at augean.UUCP writes:

> Is the gcc licence agreement more restrictive than commercial (say AT&T
> for example) compiler licences. On my system all the include files
> have AT&T Copyright notices on them. My (binary only) licence doesn't
> say anything about exemptions for libraries or include files. Arguably
> giving/selling a program compiled on my system is redistributing stuff
> that my licence forbids. It would have major ramifications for the
> whole industry if anyone tried to enforce such an interpretation.

My Schedule for AT&T Unix System V, Release 3.0 licensing fees says:

   (v)	Use of any portion of [UNIX] in deriving a SUBLICENED PRODUCT
	will require payment of the full fee for that extansion
	except as listed below:

	- Routines from the files in usr/src/lib whose pathnames
	  end in .o or .a may be included in the object-code
	  format in customer developed applications software
	  without payment of a sub-licensing fee to AT&T.

	- Routines in directories usr/src/head may be used to
	  interface to routine in usr/src/lib whose pathname
	  end in .o or .a or files in usr/lib whose pathnames
	  end in .a without payment of a sublicensing fee to
	  AT&T.

It sounds to me as though AT&T isn't such a bad guy after all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Van Dyke                   cliff at ssd.harris.com
Harris Computer System           cliff%ssd.harris.com at eddie.mit.edu
2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd.        ...!{mit-eddie,uunet,novavax}!hcx1!cliff
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892        
Tel: (305) 974-1700