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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-08 08:31:53 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!62.154.176.138!not-for-mail
From: Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 17:31:14 +0100
Organization: private
Message-ID: <3C63FD52.FB404836@gmx.de>
References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>
 <5ee5b646.0202070634.77619f82@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: steffen.huber@gmx.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.154.176.138
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1013185912 45940577 62.154.176.138 (16 [82308])
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: de
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19781
Date: 2002-02-08T17:31:14+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:
[snip]
> Why not put it in source forge with BOTH licenses, you just
> make a header that says that this software is licensed under the GPL
> or the GMGPL, with the user being able to
> choose. That should satisfy both goals.

Good idea.

Your comment has made me thinking again about the licence issue. Does the
GMGPL say anything about the licence that must be used for directly
derived work? GPL or GMGPL?

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/