Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:55 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:

> And GPL for an executable is no restriction. There is no *relevant* 
> difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
> lib's it make a *relevant* difference.

No no no, saying it this way is almost dangerous, and certainly
misleading!

1/ If you get a GCC compiler executable from any 3rd party then this
supplier of the GCC executable must give you the GCC sources on
request (unless usually supplied with an OS like GNU/Linux I think).
If the GCC executables are spread across linkable object files,
this doesn't make a difference.

2/ If you produce executables *running* GCC as the compiler, then
your product may or may not have to be GPLed on distribution 
depending on whether any purely GPLed source makes it into
your executable. Again, no difference if you distribute your
application across exe, dll, whatever, or if you link pre-built
GPLed(!) libs, etc.  But usually the compiler sources (as opposed
to run-time libraries) aren't translated into object code to become
part of executables (unlike Lisp, say). And this is why GCC can be
a basis for producing closed source programs.

If, referring to exe + dll, lib, etc., you mean the plug-in style
of program:
"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as
an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.
This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with
the non-free main program would violate the GPL."
  -- www.fsf.org/licensing

There is no closed source escape from pure GPL, just like there is
no escape from the terms and conditions of other licenses.
If no part of GCC becomes part of you program, chances are that
only other reasons might force your program to be covered
by the GPL, not that your have run GCC as the compiler.