Re: FSF libgnat

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Linking libgnat into your program, whether statically or dynamically,
> causes parts of it to be incorporated into your program (and, indeed,
> causes your program to be a "work based on" libgnat, in GPL parlance).
> Your program does not have to be GPL (by special permission), but
> libgnat keeps its license, and that license requires that you provide
> or offer to provide the sources of libgnat.

In other words, you're saying that different parts of the same 
executable file will be covered by different licenses. Now *that* is messy!

Let's look at the exception:

"As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this 
unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, 
this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be 
covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not 
however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be 
covered by the GNU Public License."

The wording seems to assume that the GPL would either cover the whole 
executable or none of it, but according to you it should be read as 
"...does not cause the *entire* executable to be covered by the GPL – 
just parts of it."

So what happens when GMGPL code and code with a typical proprietary 
license is combined into a single file? The GMGPL says users are allowed 
to redistribute the file. The proprietary license says they're not. Are 
they only allowed to distribute parts of it? How do they know which 
parts? And who would want assorted shards of machine code anyway?

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu