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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04> <1152882713.304794.267470@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 14 Jul 2006 21:58:27 +0200 Message-ID: <34r70ox8kc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.209.210 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1152906676 88.72.209.210 (14 Jul 2006 21:51:16 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5716 Date: 2006-07-14T21:58:27+02:00 List-Id: "Hyman Rosen" writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > I say: Nonsense. > > For GPLv3, the FSF is planning to roll the LGPL into the GPL, > using the new GPL's ability to add extra permission clauses. > > Here's a quote from Stallman (copied from Groklaw): Hi Hyman, Yes, I've read the Interview at Groklaw. I've the following things to remark: (1) Your hypothesis (somewhere earlier in this thread) was, that the the GMGPL linking exception is contradicting the GPL, i.e. one can't redistribute with the exception clause intact. The interview has no bearing on that. (2) I think, that this direction on part of the FSF is a bad move. What will come from that is, that we'll see more and more software where the LGPL has been converted to GPL (not to give the end user more freedom, but to poison tools for commercial use and introduce a dual licensing scheme). Imagine Linux distributions with LibC under GPL, and you can only get the LGPL version if you buy support for the enterprise edition. (3) I think that allowing anyone to redistribute without linking exception will emphasize the viral nature of GPL and won't do FLOSS much good. After all, if I don't want somebody to strip the linking exception from my code, I'll have to avoid the GPL in future, since I cannot add a non-removable exception to GPL 3. Furthermore it would be annoying, if, a business adds improved to a library under LGPL. Then a competitor adds more improvements and strips the linking exception. The first company can now only continue to use the non improved version. Somehow that seems to me a break of the implied "sharing contract" -- I'd expect other people to add under the same conditions (so that I can also profit from their improvements, not introducing different rules that exclude application areas for earlier contributors). (4) As far as GtkAda (2.4.0) and Florist are concerned: Their license is still GMGPL based on GPL 2. So it is still open, wether the linking exception can be stripped from source you don't own. (As a reference: You can't convert LGPL 2 to GPL, that much is certain in my eyes). Regards -- Markus