Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote: [...]
libstdc++ is not solely distributed under the GNU GPL - if it was, every program built with it would have to be distributed under GPL as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nonsense (if you mean distribution of "copies" [17 USC 101]; not licensing exclusive rights to original and derivative "works"... which must be done under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL; compilation-vs-derivative distinction aside for a moment). Being a mere copyright license (not a contract), the GPL can't override the first sale [17 USC 109].
You are surely aware that your idea of what requires a licence (and on which the GPL can therefore place conditions) is unusual and does not agree with the intent of most of those distributing under the GPL. I've stated what I believe to be the case and I don't wish to argue it with you. Those who are being asked to give permission for inclusion in libstdc++ can make up their own minds. Now that I think about it, I seem to remember that contributions to GCC (of which libstdc++ is part) must have their copyright assigned to the FSF. If this is correct, it would not be sufficient for copyright holders to give permission for relicencing. Can you check this, Jonathan?