[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] New libc++ LLVM Subproject

David Chisnall csdavec at swan.ac.uk
Wed May 12 09:20:20 PDT 2010


On 12 May 2010, at 14:57, David Greene wrote:

> I simply don't see or don't understand that libstdc++ has a similar
> level of "closedness."


Recent versions of libstdc++ are GPLv3 + runtime exemption.  Te exemption means that the license is completely irrelevant for anyone using or linking against the library, but it is still an issue when you are distributing the code.

You will note that *BSD and OS X all ship with an old version of libstdc++ for precisely this reason.  About the only people happy to include GPLv3 code in the core system appear to be GNU/Linux distributions.  

While I can't speak for the original motivations in creating libc++, I am certain that it will be welcomed in the BSD community as an opportunity to replace a large blob of GPL'd code with something more permissively licensed.  I imagine that other BSD licensed systems that depend heavily on C++, such as ReactOS and Haiku, will also be enthusiastic.

If you are not distributing a C++ standard library, then the license is not relevant to you.  If you are only targeting GNU/Linux and / or Windows, then the widespread availability of a permissively licensed C++ standard library is not important to you.  

In either of these cases, as Chris says, you are completely free to ignore the existence of libc++, just as people who are happy with GCC are free to ignore the existence of clang.  On behalf of everyone who isn't so fortunate, I'd like to thank Howard and everyone else who has and will work on libc++.

David

-- Sent from my Apple II





More information about the cfe-dev mailing list