Shed Skin Python-to-C++ Compiler 0.0.21, Help needed

Michael Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Sun Apr 1 07:13:49 CEST 2007


On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Michael Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu> writes:
> > The no-service contract version of the GPL is not the same as the
> > standard GPLv2.
> 
> I don't see how that can be--we're talking about a GCC-based compiler,
> right?

I found the real reason why the GPL'd GNAT compiler's produced
executables are required to be GPL'd, and it has nothing to do with the
license of the compiler:

"What is the license of the GNAT GPL Edition?
Everything (tools, runtime, libraries) in the GNAT GPL Edition is
licensed under the General Public License (GPL). This ensures that
executables generated by the GNAT GPL Edition are Free Software and that
source code is made available with the executables, giving the freedom
to recepients to run, study, modify, adapt, and redistribute sources and
execuatbles under the terms of the GPL."[1]

Note that it says the runtime *and* the libraries are GPL. Thus the
linking clause in the GPL requires that programs that link against them
(the executable in other words) must be GPL'd.  Note that GLibC, while
being GPL, has an exception clause in it, allowing linking to it by code
of any license.

Hence it's a red herring as far as the discussion and Shed Skin is
concerned, although the licensing of any Shed Skin runtime libraries
should be a concern to folks.

[1] https://libre.adacore.com/




More information about the Python-list mailing list