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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
Date: 14 Jul 2006 06:11:53 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1152882713.304794.267470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
   <ugi7n3-9it.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
   <q8ac7ytzhl.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost>
   <i0ac7ym9ed.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <yk1wt2utos.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04>
   <vczmfpnhal.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.248.208
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1152882718 4771 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2006 13:11:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:11:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.248.208;
   posting-account=lJDDWg0AAACmMd7wLM4osx8JUCDw_C_j
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5690
Date: 2006-07-14T06:11:53-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

M E Leypold wrote:
> I say: Nonsense.

For GPLv3, the FSF is planning to roll the LGPL into the GPL,
using the new GPL's ability to add extra permission clauses.

Here's a quote from Stallman (copied from Groklaw):
    One of the other benefits we get from this is that we
    make it clear that any time someone adds extra
    permissions on top of the GNU GPL, that when
    you modify the program you can take off those added
    permissions. You can release your version under the
    strict GPL and nothing more.

So you can see that it's very much the intention of the FSF that
people are allowed to remove extra permission clauses if they
want to. On the other hand, having these extra clauses as part
of the main license should clear up the question of whether one
can redistribute with the extra permissions. I do agree with you
that the originial authors of Florist and the like intended for the
software to be redistributable with the extended permissions. I
just think they didn't word their license properly. The new LGPL
should help with that.