From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3e26dfa741e64e5f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available
Date: 21 Sep 2005 05:32:09 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1127305928.990905.320910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1126875543.239666.325290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <bFCWe.24901$QB2.5887@reader1.news.jippii.net>
   <3467d$432b0af1$49956f8$22115@ALLTEL.NET>
   <slrndj24gu.oqn.randhol@bacchus.pvv.ntnu.no>
   <87r7bi6e5o.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
   <slrndj2f53.65i.randhol@grubgrub.pvv.ntnu.no>
   <m2fyryy61c.fsf@hugin.crs4.it>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.249.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127305934 25991 127.0.0.1 (21 Sep 2005 12:32:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:32:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.249.72;
   posting-account=lJDDWg0AAACmMd7wLM4osx8JUCDw_C_j
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4997
Date: 2005-09-21T05:32:09-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > Or is there some other contract stopping me from doing it?
>
> That contract would mean that AdaCore broke their contract with the
> copyright holders (i.e. GNU GPL/GMGPL)

AdaCore could grant the GMGPL exemption only to their paid customers,
and not permit that exemption to be transferred. There's nothing wrong
with that under the GPL. So any paid customer could redistribute the
compiler as widely as they wish, but recipients could use it only to
produce GPLed software, as they would not be granted the GMGPL right
to distribute the runtime as part of a non-GPLed program.