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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny04.POSTED!0e8a908a!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:55:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.220.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: trndny04 1152039359 162.84.220.129 (Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:55:59 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:55:59 EDT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5483 Date: 2006-07-04T18:55:59+00:00 List-Id: M E Leypold wrote: > "Hyman Rosen" 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.