Re: License of that GNAT patch ?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 05.10.11 17:37, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

>> Seems this patch must be applied in order to have GNAT to support  
>> Static_Predicate and Dynamic_Predicate. However, the patch contains no  
>> license information, and I would like to know how I should handle such a  
>> case and any future similar cases. The GNAT compiler I use is one with the  
>> GCC Runtime Exception, which I wish to preserve. Is a patch like this to  
>> be considered part of runtime or not ? It is part of the compiler from  
>> some point of view, but also supposed to drive generation of runtime code,  
>> so I feel dubious.
> 
> - This patch belongs to the FSF.
> - All the files affected by this patch belong to the FSF.
> - The patch does not change the license of the files.
> 
> Therefore, the license 

(which is the GPL (even when with exception))

> that applies is the license of each file
> affected by the patch.

I understand that this specific patch belongs to the FSF
and that, therefore, FSF has the right to make an exception?

Is it correct that changing GMGPLed software, e.g.
when creating a derivative work, still means that
the GPL applies to it without exception?  ("If you link
*this* unit ...")

I'm thinking of the following scenario:

A has published some software X, under the GMGPL.

B modifies X, on behalf of C.

B "wishes" to keep the exception. (Well, because C asked
B that it be kept). Therefore C can later use the X that B
has modified, which would still be GMGPLed, for making proprietary
closed source software products that includes original X
with B's modifications. (No longer linking *this* unit...)