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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1060de63f71a1a06
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.50.133 with SMTP id c5mr14280421pbo.2.1317844952450;
        Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni12340pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:02:16 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: License of that GNAT patch ?
References: <op.v2vvymhxule2fv@index.ici>
 <de6e4001-ef36-4ad5-83d2-ae7239a9c327@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <de6e4001-ef36-4ad5-83d2-ae7239a9c327@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4e8cb7c8$0$6633$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Oct 2011 22:02:16 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f2a3f805.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=B3j<AgECf5:U`5g[@c]@J1A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;Hbm@c@?m5g=nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=NMW\ZNQcgT2
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18313
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-10-05T22:02:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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...)