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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!statler.nntpserver.com!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: No relicense everything now! (was: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?)
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <1151479699.777290.36890@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
	 <ugi7n3-9it.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
	 <1151413996.881418.65260@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
	 <2418185.2jO2KLhFBO@linux1.krischik.com>
	 <1151431127.2179.20.camel@localhost>
	 <1151479699.777290.36890@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1151482047.24349.18.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:07:28 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jun 2006 10:05:36 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 53ffa364.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X^Sj8>:jN0;gL1_>^S7Mi=Q5U85hF6f;4jW\KbG]kaM8GSi?jHD8GO0A4ec2Em]kN?UUng9_FXZ=3>:=P9Ihe`B8@Z?dZ]MOid5
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5195
Date: 2006-06-28T10:05:36+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:28 -0700, Martin Krischik wrote:

> > The GMGPL is certainly GPL compatible.
> 
> No they are not.

>>From a licensing point of view, the GMGPL is compatible with
the GPL.
You just can't arbitrarily add the GMGPL exception to GPLed
source that isn't yours.

No need to make the BCs GPLed.
GNAT GPL Edition has no technical problem compiling any
GMGPLed code.
The GMGPL sources do not influence the license status of
the GNAT run-time system, for example.

>  Look at this simple code sniplet:
> 
> with GNAT.OS_Lib;
> 
> package My_OS_Lib
>    package Pass_Thrue  renames GNAT.OS_Lib;
> end My_OS_Lib;
> 
> I used a rename to make shure the problem is exposed.

There is no problem with the BCs license:
If someone wishes to compile closed source binaries for
distribution using GNAT GPL Edition, they can't.
Reason: the GNAT GPL Edition is not licensed for closed source
software development.
The BCs could be in the public domain. That wouldn't change
anything.


> Right: My work has to become GPL as well.

But not the BCs!