Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

["george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com>]

(Sorry if this comes as a dupe - the session died while posting. Does
anybody know of a public news server that allows to post?)

M E Leypold wrote:
> I don't think that's specific enough. He ist just talking about
Then just write to him and pose all these questions ;). I am not the
right person to ask as I am technically "just spreading rumors" :).

> "package". The distributables in question are (for me):
>
>  - GtkAda 2.4.0, Source as from libre (no license on site).
This is the one I was referring to in my email, so you may take the
meaning of that responce as concerning this version.

>  - GtkAda 2.4.0, Win32 executables from libre (no license on site).
The GPL talks about distribution of sources and binaries, so whatever
is produced from above sources should be covered (it is a derivative
work technically)..


>  - GtkAda 2.2.1, as advertised on freshmeat (as GMGPL!) and still served
>
>  - GtkAda Sources, various versions, as distributed via anon CVS from libre.
These you should ask about.

>  - Finally: The single files in all versions above which carry a GMGPL
>    copyright header. If one where to strip all build mechanisms from
>    the original GtkAda and just use the *.ads and *.adb files to build
>    a new binding: Would that be GMGPL?
No, you cannot simply strip all other pointers to legal information or
otherwise. The exception clauses were left there simply because they
did not bother so far to strip them. This is the fragment from his
response to my next email talking about some of this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> However I can see the individual source files still have that exception
> clause. (Source was obtained from
> https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/
> couple of days ago). Perhaps it should be removed then

Right, that's a desirable thing to do, which we will do at some point.

> I could sed these lines out of the installed files, but
> 1. I do not think I am legally in position to do this,
> 2. I would rather not touch the sources unnecessarily..

Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source
files have
no real legal value anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense?
> What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly).
It most definitely was, the change to GPL is recent. However I only
started cleaning up Ada in Gentoo recently, so I cannot comment on
particulars.

> > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS).
>
> Only that Trolltech AFAIR has a linking exception for QT?
No, it does not, the situation is very much the same now. In fact I
suspect this transition to GPL may have been influenced by Trolltech's
example (they also had somewhat obscure licensing scheme in the
beginning, but transitioned to GPL/commercial as of some years ago).

> > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting
> > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources..
>
> I might just do that. I'll keep all informed.
Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these
questions coming up every month, like t is now :).

George