# Could I statically link libgcc without releasing the sources?



## badbrain (May 1, 2019)

I mean -static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++.


----------



## badbrain (May 1, 2019)

badbrain said:


> I mean -static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++.


Anyone, please?


----------



## ralphbsz (May 1, 2019)

Sorry, I am not licensed by the State of California to give legal advice.  I would recommend that you read the licenses for libgcc and libstdc++, read the GNU project documentation for them, and look around the web for the plentiful discussions of that topic.  If at that point you still have doubts, please retain the services of an attorney with experience in IP law.  My expectation is that 5 minutes of reading of FAQs will answer your question.


----------



## badbrain (May 1, 2019)

ralphbsz said:


> Sorry, I am not licensed by the State of California to give legal advice.  I would recommend that you read the licenses for libgcc and libstdc++, read the GNU project documentation for them, and look around the web for the plentiful discussions of that topic.  If at that point you still have doubts, please retain the services of an attorney with experience in IP law.  My expectation is that 5 minutes of reading of FAQs will answer your question.


My brain is too stupid for understanding the wall of text of the GPL. But on SO and Wiki it seemed I can link to these libraries because of linking exception but dynamic link, not statically link.


----------



## ralphbsz (May 1, 2019)

Do the words "dynamic" or "static" show up in the GNU foundation FAQs for the license exceptions for these libraries?  Read the two FAQs carefully, where they talk about how executables are made from sources, compilers, and libraries.


----------

