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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,18e682cb937b2c58
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Andreas Almroth <andreasNO_XSPAM@almroth.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:13:22 +0100
Message-ID: <3av1vhF6bo85jU1@individual.net>
References: <3atkviF6e5b9nU1@individual.net>
 <dKednTCIhJceatTfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net MaTsDeYoBRwa6mABTZdVZQupPmijvZApgWFxjWRvnVqEP+ey12
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050127)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <dKednTCIhJceatTfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10135
Date: 2005-03-30T08:13:22+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeff C wrote:
> Andreas Almroth wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For those of you interested, I have updated the Ada95 bindings to;
>>
>> * GPGME 1.0.2 (GnuPG Made Easy C API)
>> * libgpg-error 1.0 (common error message library for GnuPG components)
>>
<snip>
> 
> Nice!
> 
> One note..While I am a big fan of the GMGPL approach, it is not really 
> clear that it is entirely helpful in this case since GNUPG itself 
> appears to be GPL without exception...Not suggesting you need to change 
> the license binding but people using it (as always) need to understand 
> all of the license issues that are involved.
> 

Thanks!

Regarding the license, yes, it may not be entirely clear, I agree fully.
GnuPG is GPL only, GPGME is LGPL as its design is not limited to GnuPG, 
and in the future may include other backends that may use other 
licenses. I believe that could have been a reason why they choose LGPL.
I use GMGPL for most of my work that I publish. I like the GMGPL, it is 
an approved license, and is based on GPL with the exception that any 
code instantiating generics or using parts does not necessarily make the 
final product GPL/GMGPL. However copyrights are still in place.
GMGPL differs from LGPL, but to my understanding, not so much in reality.

In this specific scenario, it is hard to say where to draw the line, as 
GPGME, AFAIK, does not link to GnuPG, but merely calls the executable 
with the necessary arguments. AdaGPGME is then linking to GPGME and any 
resulting products would be based on LGPL, which means they can have 
other (even non-free) licenses. The GMGPL would not be in the way really.

Well, I'm not an legal eagle, but I don't see that GMGPL in any way is 
limiting/infringing LGPL.

Perhaps I should add a note to the README file...

/A