Re: Licensing Paranoia and Manual Compilation Issues

[alexander@xn--junivrs-e1a.com]

> Building a dynamic library (do you mean .so? are you on a Mac or Linux? 
> You mention my darwin 8.1.0 release) is more so. 

Yes. According to (this page)[1] it's accomplishable using the following command:

$ gcc -shared -o libmy_lib.so *.o

but that causes an error mentioning how there are "Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:".

> For licensing in arbitrary ways, the aforementioned Ada distribution is not 
> the suitable one. Another compiler distribution might meet your needs, 
> including some FSF GNAT. GPL means tit-for-tat and thus intentionally puts 
> restrictions on licensing, no back doors.

GPL on its own, I must say, does serve a purpose. It's nice for the author to be able to share their source or works and still be certain nobody can (legally anyway) steal their work and distribute it for a fee themselves.

When it comes to source code licensed under GPL lacking the runtime library exception, on the other hand, I can't say I'm too fond of it. Compilers on their own, featuring a standard library, should always be free to use; whereupon the user may licence their executable in any way they want.

[1] http://beru.univ-brest.fr/~singhoff/DOC/LANG/ADA/gnat_ugn_20.html