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: 103376,577ecbb6c5a53a1f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.107.38 with SMTP id gz6mr812308wib.0.1349481153957;
        Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q10ni64982515wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.71.90.67.MISMATCH!news.unit0.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:52:32 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Forking old GMGPL libs ?
References: <5de9a47c-6594-4653-a083-38f90312e70e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5de9a47c-6594-4653-a083-38f90312e70e@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <506f72c0$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Oct 2012 01:52:32 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7b428f9d.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X8nmS]CTWV3RadXUBHgFh34IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;LUi?h0ZgaZ3PCY\c7>ejV8M^2XHRO`c`71>Fk`C1HJN5
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-10-06T01:52:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06.10.12 00:51, Patrick wrote:
> I was thinking about forking older GNAT libraries that were licensed under GMGPL. If someone gives me an older library that they received under the GMGPL then don't' they still have the right to redistribute it under the GMGPL ?

If you follow the text of the GMGPL, it speaks about
instances and linking of *this*. Not of derivative works,
not of changed works, and not about transferring the right
to decide on the copyright to anyone merely because they
also want their changes to be GMGPLed.

I cannot but read the exception as to apply to the software
*as* *is*. Period.

The Wikipedia entry on "GNAT Modified General Public License"
is junk, on several accounts. I'd rather not venture changing
it now, but perhaps it is best to just remove the introductory
sentence and add some links to legal prose that hopefully
exists somewhere.