Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0

["Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
...
> I have already voiced my position as a Debian developer: I will retain
> the GMGPL for existing libraries (those in Sarge) but will switch to
> the pure GPL for newer versions (those in Etch), in order to comply
> with AdaCore's stated (in email) license. Furthermore, I am removing
> the linking and generic instantiation exception text from the source
> files in Debian, in order to reduce the potential for confusion; ....
>

Again, Thanks for all your work on the Debian Ada packages.

One thing I'd request would be for you to clearly distinguish between a
GtkAda or Florist Debian package that is GMGPL and a pure GPL version,
when I'm looking at packages in aptitude or a similar package
management tool.

Whether having two visibly different package names, like maybe
"GPLflorist" vs. "Florist " or GPLgtkAda vs. GtkAda is a good approach
or something else would be better, I dont' know.

I guess part of the request is not to "mix" Debian package dependencies
between GMGPL packages, and the GPL packages.

Is that hard to do? Have you already dealt with this?  I hate to add to
your workload, but if we're going to have two sets of Ada toolkits that
have such radically different permitted uses in Debian, we'll need help
keeping the licenses straight.

Steve