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

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

M E Leypold wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:


>> The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a
>> microsoft EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF
>> version of free which has almost nothing to do with what everyone
>> seems to want it to mean.
> 
> Not quite. The FSF is offering also the LGPL (and they are using it
> for Glibc and the Gcc runtime, BTW. Meditate about that).

The FSF released the runtime with its license after much
deliberation, and they emphasize that they prefer plain
GPL, even for libraries.


> There is no pointing to the FSF here. After all one (as a library
> author) can freely decide between GPL, LGPL and GMGPL. Its their right
> to offer libraries under GPL. OK. But they must also stand the
> statement that (in a library) that implies less freedom

From the perspective of the author of a GPLed library, the GPL implies
*more* freedom, *not* less, because library derived works will be freely
available.
Anything else will indeed be against the intent of the GPL which is
stated in the Preamble, "to make sure the software is free for all
its users" (by way of forcing derived works to be GPL, too).

From the FAQ at libre.adacore.com:

                 | ... | GNAT GPL Edition
| Intended users | ... | Free Software developers


-- Georg