Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Georg Bauhaus schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:55 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
>> And GPL for an executable is no restriction. There is no *relevant* 
>> difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
>> lib's it make a *relevant* difference.
> 
> No no no, saying it this way is almost dangerous, and certainly
> misleading!
> 
> 1/ If you get a GCC compiler executable from any 3rd party then this
> supplier of the GCC executable must give you the GCC sources on
> request (unless usually supplied with an OS like GNU/Linux I think).
> If the GCC executables are spread across linkable object files,
> this doesn't make a difference.

And how is that a *relevant* restriction?

> 2/ If you produce executables *running* GCC as the compiler, then
> your product may or may not have to be GPLed on distribution 
> depending on whether any purely GPLed source makes it into
> your executable.  Again, no difference if you distribute your
> application across exe, dll, whatever, or if you link pre-built
> GPLed(!) libs, etc.  But usually the compiler sources (as opposed
> to run-time libraries) aren't translated into object code to become
> part of executables (unlike Lisp, say). And this is why GCC can be
> a basis for producing closed source programs.
> 
> If, referring to exe + dll, lib, etc., you mean the plug-in style
> of program:
> "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
> function calls to each other and share data structures, we
> believe they form a single program, which must be treated as
> an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.
> This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with
> the non-free main program would violate the GPL."
>   -- www.fsf.org/licensing
> 
> There is no closed source escape from pure GPL, just like there is
> no escape from the terms and conditions of other licenses.
> If no part of GCC becomes part of you program, chances are that
> only other reasons might force your program to be covered
> by the GPL, not that your have run GCC as the compiler.

I think you miss understood me. Let's move away from compiler.

Say I use the GPL program K3B to burn a CD/DVD. Does the fact that K3B 
is GPL matter to the licensing of CD/DVD's content? Has the previous 
licence of content changed? No - and why should it?

Other example: you pipe and change some text using a GPL licence sed. Is 
the new text now bound by the GPL. Has the previous licence of content 
changed? No - and why should it?

Using a GPL licence compiler does not make your program bound by the 
GPL. The compiler does not change the licence of files you compile. It's 
that stdio.h or that libglibc.so which may or may not make your program 
bound to the GPL not the compiler.

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik