Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

M E Leypold wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> it does not require that this exemption must continue to be given
>> upon redistribution.
> 
> Are you sure? I don't think so. The exemption is part of the
> conditions under which the thingy is licensed to you. So the words
> "this license" in the GPL apply to the exemption also.
> 
>> In fact, a close reading of
>> that heading would imply that you are not even permitted to
>> redistribute with that exemption! 
> 
> Could you try to give some arguments in favor of this rather strange view?

Well, again, here's the part of the header of the file
which deals with distribution:

......................................................................
FLORIST is free software;  you can  redistribute  it and/or  modify it
under terms of the  GNU  General  Public  License as  published by the
Free Software Foundation;  either version  2, or (at  your option) any
later version.

As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from  this
unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an  executable,
this  unit does not by itself cause the  resulting  executable  to  be
covered  by the  GNU  General  Public License. This exception does not
however invalidate any other  reasons why the executable file might be
covered by the GNU Public License.
......................................................................

As you can see, the only way you are allowed to distribute this file
is under the GPL, and the GPL does not contain the special exemption.
So you are not allowed to distribute this file to other people with
the exemption in place. The people who distributed it to you must then
have been the original copyright holders, who were able to choose any
additional terms they wished.

As you can also see, there is no mention of "this license". The only
license that's mentioned is the (pure) GPL.

So it's pretty clear: the authors of Florist distributed the files to
you, allowing you to generate executables from them not bound by the
GPL solely because of that, but only permitting you to redistribute
them under the GPL without that exemption. Had they wished otherwise,
they would have inserted license terms that said that you must grant
the same exemption to anyone to whom you redistribute.

Or maybe they just didn't ask a lawyer.