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 2002:a02:a10d:: with SMTP id f13mr45347717jag.23.1558290425140; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5a14:: with SMTP id v20mr17850138oth.342.1558290424977; Sun, 19 May 2019 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!i64no516143iti.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni575itc.0!nntp.google.com!u76no514763ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.234.171; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.234.171 References: <100ad407-090e-4316-9746-a4469568b53e@googlegroups.com> <477352cf-80d0-458c-b64a-4605557fef8f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <36cf3be3-0ab0-48d4-bffa-e49c624e73ff@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada to Ada Translator ? From: Optikos Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 18:27:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56339 Date: 2019-05-19T11:27:04-07:00 List-Id: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:08:33 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: > "G.B." writes: >=20 > > At face value, the license exception applies to that very compiler's > > sources, unchanged. >=20 > Actually the compiler sources are plain GPL; the RTS sources have the > exception. >=20 > > It does not extend to derivative works which you seem to have in mind > > when mentioning to fork. >=20 > Agreed that this is a potentially contentious area: the Exception says > that it 'applies to a given file (the "Runtime Library") that bears a > notice placed by the copyright holder of the file stating that the file > is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception' - are you entitled to > maintain the Exception in a derivative work? if you do, does it count? > (you not being the sole copyright holder). If a legitimate copyright holder places the Runtime Library Exception in a = file, then anyone may create derivative works of that file with the Runtime= Library Exception still in effect as long as all the restrictions regardin= g Target Code and Compilation Process being an Eligible Compilation Process= are obeyed (e.g., no intermediate code was emitted then processed by a non= GPL-compliant Compilation Process). Whether the source code (e.g., increme= ntal maintenance; drastic departure) is the derivative work or whether the = object code then executable is the derivative work makes no difference to c= opyright law; they are all derivative works under the GPL. If Simon's worr= y applies to source-code derivative works, then it applies to object-code &= executable derivative works as well. BIGGER ISSUE: The vastly more germane dicey question legally is whether Patrick's propose= d generated Ada-to-Ada source code qualifies as Target Code (and thus gets = to enjoy the Runtime Library Exception's generous nonGPL-license permission= s for Target Code emitted from an Eligible Compilation Process) or whether = it would be deemed the onerous intermediate representation that then decisi= vely revokes the permissions of the Runtime Library Exception for any progr= ammer using the ineligible Compilation Process. [I am not a lawyer. This posting is merely a remembrance of my understandi= ng for my own usage. Please consult a copyright-law & contract-law lawyer = if these matters affect you.] > I've carefully avoided this issue in my Cortex GNAT RTS by assigning the > copyright to the FSF :-)