Re: [RFC 0/3] Move Old Recipes to meta-extras

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:34 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Saul Wold <saul.wold@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 05/16/2011 12:51 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 10:08 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Saul Wold<saul.wold@intel.com>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 05/15/2011 11:19 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On May 14, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>   wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This proposes to move the YAFFS2-utils, older clutter-1.4
> >>>>>> and older GCC version (4.3.3 and 3.4.4) as they are unused
> >>>>>> and currently unbuildable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we left with any GPLv2 version of gcc after this ?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Khem,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is not having a GPLv2 version of gcc an issue? For the non-gplv3
> >>>> version, my
> >>>> understanding is to have an installed user-space for oe-core for a
> >>>> non-development system, therefore gcc is not an issue.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> there are certain parts of gcc which go onto target e.g. libgcc libstdc++
> >>
> >> These have specific license exceptions allowing non-gpl code to use them
> >> as system libraries though?
> >>
> > Richard is correct, there are exception for the runtime parts of GCC.
> > Sorry Khem, I was not catching to original gist of the question.
> 
> exceptions yes but they are not same exceptions between GPLv2 and GPLv3 gcc.

Is there a problem here though? What impact are you concerned with?

Cheers,

Richard