Re: Win32Ada

[Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com>]

Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
> In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
> >Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
> >GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
> limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
> you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
> obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
> or group of people.

The GPL or some of the explanatory materials that were distributed with
it points out that there may be some conflicts between the GPL and other
contractual arrangements with other parties that bind particular users
of 
GPL'd items. The GPL does not bend on account of those arrangements, and 
it's up to the user of the GPL'd items to act according to the GPL or to 
refrain from using the GPL'd items.

If a GPL'd item or a derivative of a GPL'd item is created in a way that 
some other conflicting license or contract also applies, then whoever 
tried to satisfy both arrangements probably made a mistake.  Of course,
with something like Win32 bindings, the existence of a conflicting 
requirement would only be determined by direct contact with the
attorneys 
of MS, something we wouldn't wish on anyone, so the area is perhaps
inherently murky.        

Here's something that I don't understand about the GPL:  Does it allow
any restrictions on copying of GPL'd works?  Are any means by which I 
come into possession of a copy of GPL'd work legitimate, since copying 
is protected, or does the GPL allow the owner of a copy of a GPL'd 
work or its copyright holder to forbid me from copying it?  I suppose
that this might be germaine to discussions of Ada, given the sometimes
long lags between private and public releases of some GPL Ada tools.    
  

Al