Re: License of that GNAT patch ?

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

On 05.10.11 22:11, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> I understand that this specific patch belongs to the FSF and that,
>> therefore, FSF has the right to make an exception?
>
> The FSF is not making an exception, the FSF decides on the license of
> each file.

Which is, as stated, the GPLv3 with a special exception described
in the GCC Runtime Library 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 ...")
>
> No.  If you receive a file under the GPLv3 with Runtime Library
> Exception, you may:
>
> - incorporate this file into proprietary software and distribute that
> - redistribute the file with unchanged license
> - redistribute the file under pure GPLv3
>
> at your choice.

My question was referring to a changed library, in this case a patched
library. The library would, therefore, not just be incorporated, but
would be changed. Only then is this different library to be incorporated.

>> 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...)
>
> Correct.  In this scenario, the license of the file is GMGPL all along,
> permitting inclusion into proprietary software.  What is your point?

The point is changing software that is licensed under GPLv3 with
exception.

Neither the GMGPL (its exception) nor the GCC Runtime Library Exception,
unlike the Java classpath exception, say something about making changes
to the software they cover. The exception of the GMGPL is about instances
and linking. The GCC Runtime Library Exception is about target code that
GCC produces from its own library and independent modules.
It does not itself say something about changing the library.
(And then doing things mentioned above.)

Consider a library that is based on the GCC runtime library
by being a (sufficiently) patched version thereof.

When does patching imply "based on"?

Who has the right to say how to use this new, patched library?

What if there is no assignment of copyright to settle ownership
of this new work?

If this isn't a a legal issue, wow, then I imagine that any Ada shop
can take whatever they need from the whole of the FSF Ada body,
modify it in whichever way they like, and distribute binaries
made from the result, without any obligation regarding sources.
(They have been patching sources to which a linking exception applies...
I can't help but think that a linking permission does not imply
more far reaching permissions.)
Sounds like a general presumption in the sense of weakening copyleft,