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 10.180.73.134 with SMTP id l6mr1010497wiv.1.1349514672106;
        Sat, 06 Oct 2012 02:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q10ni64986304wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.134.4.91.MISMATCH!news2.euro.net!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:11:10 +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>
 <506f72c0$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <ceaa0497-cc13-444b-95e1-db51ec32d5e6@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ceaa0497-cc13-444b-95e1-db51ec32d5e6@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <506ff5af$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Oct 2012 11:11:11 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: e3133b04.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=O92_[VY;WVc9kIfcjg:0fd4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkLUi?h0ZgaZcPCY\c7>ejVhM^2XHRO`c`gn\Zb^<_O4ng
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-10-06T11:11:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.