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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.112.231 with SMTP id it7mr40544641obb.9.1415818589205; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:56:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.94.81 with SMTP id f75mr772617qge.5.1415818589169; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:56:29 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!r10no1966679igi.0!news-out.google.com!u1ni10qah.0!nntp.google.com!i13no1148522qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:56:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.250.123.221; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.250.123.221 References: <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam> <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <1415776387.7960.41.camel@obry.net> <4b21e212-7744-433a-a939-a82ef63ce8cc@googlegroups.com> <1415791954.7960.59.camel@obry.net> <2c66b776-777b-4530-a1a3-21337cefab85@googlegroups.com> <1ac854d1-36b7-4d06-b673-ad25cdb71736@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <21022da5-3a68-4ed4-aea9-46ec30cc7602@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:56:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23184 Date: 2014-11-12T10:56:28-08:00 List-Id: > Have you talked to him personally about that? To me this seems like a pre= tty unfair statement, given that most if not all other FSF-backed programmi= ng languages do not encumber executables with the GPL. He wrote it on the FSF website and why he chose _not_ to GPL the runtimes. > The runtime engine should have been put under LGPL and wasn't (perhaps be= cause LGPL didn't exist at that time?), but I would be surprised to hear th= at this was in any way RMS's decision. The FSF of the GNAT version is not encumbered and no, he would not do such = a thing for the same reasons he wrote in general about not making the other= GCC runtimes GPL. This was an AdaCore decision to Shareware a version of t= he compiler they put out publicly. Disclaimer: AdaCore have every right to = do so as well. David Botton