Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

M E Leypold wrote:
> Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:


>> If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that
>> Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily
> 
> You're completely right in that respect.

State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs
from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really
talking about, I think.

-

Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and
distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of
your choosing?

-

I find it a bit dangerous to say the word "right" in a discussion
of legal issues. That aside, the word "freedom" always has points
of reference. Freedom for whom to do what to what, provided that, etc.
As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software
uses some specific points of references when it says what free means
in the GPL.

Playing with the word "free" saying less free or more free without
stating the other parts of the notion of "free" is in fact a well
known omission trick in persuasive rhetoric, used when the speakers
want to fool others - and sometimes themselves.
Ahmadinedjad has been trying this game, too, referring to some
deliberately incomplete definition of freedom as in freedom of press,
when he pointed out that he thinks that western press is in fact not
free.

We are not free to stone someone to death, and we are not free to
distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software
library. Fair enough, I'd say.

Georg