Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> > That ACT denies they can remember that ever GtkAda was distributed a
> > GMGPL. That is about all and at the core of all that. You understand
> > that now? Even the older versions from the ACT site are now supposed
> > to be under GPL ONLY, even if they didn't change from the way they
> > very (as we remember) distributed as GMGPL.
> 
> Anything they distributed under the GMGPL remains under the
> GMGPL. They're certainly allowed to change the license they use for
> GtkAda for other distributions, but that doesn't affect the license
> under which they distributed it to you. 

Read the other threads. I know that it should be like that, I even
think that it is, but still I'd call that demonstrative amnesia of ACT
unsettling. An attitude that shouldn't be forgiven by the community --
at least I will remember it.

> Florist is maintained and distributed elsewhere, it seems, so that
> doesn't seem such an issue.

Let me ask -- are they allowed to change the license in files in
florist which they hardly changed (only stripping in specifiers from
the procedure definitions) and to which they don't hold the original
copyright AFAICS?

I repeat: My needs are hardly at issue here. This has more and more
become a question of principle. I can't stand FUD.

> But if you're worried that the Florist license might change, get it
> now so you'll have it with the current license if it does.

I did. I have the obsessive habit of mirroring anything of interest,
since I know how things tend to rot away. Like libre.act-europe.fr
did.


Regards --Markus