From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Subject: Re: Forking old GMGPL libs ?
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:11:10 +0200
Date: 2012-10-06T11:11:11+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <506ff5af$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ceaa0497-cc13-444b-95e1-db51ec32d5e6@googlegroups.com>
On 06.10.12 05:28, Patrick wrote:
> I thought that GMGPL is basically LGPL,
The Lesser GPL is different from GMGPL, and from the more
recent library exceptions; this seems certain.
One LGPL difference appears to be about changing "your parts" or
"their parts" and how this affects conveying works;
there are a number of definitions of terms at the start
of the license that indicate its direction.
To the extent I speculate what the legal status of GNAT GPL is,
the name, I think, surely indicates that it is better used only
when GPL compatible licenses are fine. A decent programmer will
choose in consideration of the wishes of GNAT's producers, I'd say.
I'll try an example. We use a notification program that is written
in Ada, for the most part. (Though not much else is written in Ada
at this site). Since our contractual obligations require that we
deliver both executables and source anyway, our choice of compilers
can include GNAT GPL.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-06 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-05 22:51 Forking old GMGPL libs ? Patrick
2012-10-05 23:52 ` Georg Bauhaus
2012-10-06 3:28 ` Patrick
2012-10-06 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus [this message]
2012-10-06 4:52 ` Stephen Leake
2012-10-06 7:10 ` Florian Weimer
2012-10-06 8:10 ` Simon Wright
2012-10-06 9:45 ` Brian Drummond
2012-10-06 11:27 ` LLVM and GCC (was: Forking old GMGPL libs ?) Ludovic Brenta
2012-10-06 14:04 ` Patrick
2012-10-06 15:11 ` Brian Drummond
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox