say i write some c++ code that i statically link with the '-static' gcc option (in order to make sure all of my users have the correct c++ library). does that automatically put my code under the gpl?

if i instead distribute libstdc++.so.6 alongside my own binary and dynamically link via the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, does that permit me to retain my code under my own license? are there any restrictions or implications with distributing libstdc++ unmodified?

thank you for your thoughts and expertise.

mike

Perhaps you need to read the GPL or whatever other license for which you have questions. That means the whole thing especially the fine print. About the only sound advice anyone can give you here, and you should follow, is to GET A LAWYER.

i've read the gpl, and understand it well enough. i've even read Richard Stallman's "Free Software, Free Society." i think my question is simple enough that it wouldn't require a lawyer, and i imagine that this is answered somewhere (maybe a faq or something).

this is an important question, and i wasn't able to easily track it down via google.

more consisely, my question is: would the fact that gpl code would be included in a binary that i would distribute require that all code in that binary fall under the gpl?

i have not distributed anything as such yet nor even written any code, but i want to know how to do the right thing.

mike

i think these three faqs fully answer my question:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....LinkingWithGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ibGCCException

so if you do statically link a C++ program and distribute the binary, your source code will be required to be distributed under the gpl.

however, with the libstdc exception, you can distribute the libstdc library alongside your program and link dynamically at runtime, and your source will not be required to be distributed under the gpl.