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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e9979e647d5c5aa6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada? From: Georg Bauhaus In-Reply-To: <4652da25$1@news.post.ch> References: <2128058.uC2TSY58Nb@linux1.krischik.com> <1179827279.4898.7.camel@kartoffel> <4652da25$1@news.post.ch> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1179837331.4898.32.camel@kartoffel> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:35:31 +0200 Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 May 2007 14:35:30 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: fa7276a5.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=MV0imk4ac6[V;Ef1`Jk54\4IUK 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.