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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4d70a6d53a28095
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GtkAda License Question
Date: 19 Jun 2006 04:48:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1150717691.939423.322620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <sjirmx2ydj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.123.3.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1150717697 23436 127.0.0.1 (19 Jun 2006 11:48:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:48:17 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <sjirmx2ydj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; fr-FR;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 KUUPXS02
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.123.3.11;
   posting-account=ZjNXewwAAADyBPkwI57_UcX8yKfXWOss
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4830
Date: 2006-06-19T04:48:12-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

M E Leypold writes:
> Does anybody here have any idea how the licensing situation of GtkAda
> actually is? Are the copyright header with linking exception are only
> remnants of (happy :-) days long past or is GtkAda actually licensed
> with a linking exceaption (in version 2.4.1) and it just has been
> forgotten in the README to mention that? And what about the new
> versions from the CVS (i.e. 2.8.0)?

The only authoritative source is AdaCore, so when in doubt, ask them.
Robert Dewar clearly said during FOSDEM that the headers, the COPYING
and the README files have no legal force whatsoever; users are always
required by law to ascertain the licensing terms with the licensor. The
presence of the GMGPL in the headers allows you to presume that these
licensing terms are the ones to use; IANAL so I don't know if this
argument can convince a court of law.

Now, I think it is reasonable to presume that:
- GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are
included) is pure GPL
- GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL
- GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.)

In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon
arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your
mental health :)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.