Re: GMGPL (was Improved version (2002/1/26) of MT19937 PRNG)

[Adrian Hoe <byhoe@greenlime.com>]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> Adrian Hoe <byhoe@greenlime.com> wrote in message news:<3C632D2C.83BBBB1@greenlime.com>...
> > To my understanding, I can copy the code into my source and mention the
> > origin and the authors of this copied code in my source and I will have
> > to also released my work under GMGPL.
> 
> If you are saying that the units that will contain the copied code
> will be GMGPL'ed, that sounds right to me. If you are worried about
> it, I'd suggest contacting the authors. Its their interpretation of
> the GMGPL that will decide whether or not you will actually have legal
> hassles.


I do not wish to waste the bandwidth. But I guess it is good to get
everyone's (if possible) opinions. This is the first time for me to
release work under GMGPL which contains other people's code which is
also GMGPL'ed.

I released a package MT19937 and was GPL'ed few days ago. My new
revision would contain the code from package Ada.Numerics.Float_Random
(a-nuflra.adb) which is GMGPL'ed. So my new revision would also be
GMGPL'ed. And of course, the package will be switched from GPL to GMGPL
or both.

But I thought GMGPL (or/and GPL?) supposed to be standard? Why exist the
authors' own interpretation of GMGPL, if any?


> --
> T.E.D.

-- 
                              -- Adrian Hoe
                              -- http://greenlime.com/users/adrian.hoe