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: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:16:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4964iqst0f.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.218.241 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151147448 88.72.218.241 (24 Jun 2006 13:10:48 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4958 Date: 2006-06-24T13:16:48+02:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Creem writes: > Michael Bode wrote: > > "Ludovic Brenta" writes: > > > >>>But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. > >> > >>The question was not about the compiler, it was about the run-time > >>library. > > I thought the problem arises if one instantiates generics. This is > > usage of an Ada compiler. I also thought the run-time could be linked > > dynamically and thus be distributed separate. For now I'm fine with > > gnat 3.15p, but maybe that also doesn't work for me licence-wise as... > > > > > This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it > really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the > GPL. You are thinking that some portion of the runtime is LGPL. > It is not. It is GPL with a linking/generics exception (in the case of > old GNAT <=3.15 releases and FSF derived GCC releases) which is > actually slightly more permissive than the LGPL. Only that relicensing from LGPL -> GPL is almost impossible (w/o agreement of _all_ copyright holders, which also would include contributors of significant patches, so just read that as: impossible) whereas the substamce of the discussion last hear in this very newsgroup seems to be that there seems nothing to keep a distributor to just strip the linking exceaption in a derived work. I'd be happy to hear otherwise. Regards -- Markus