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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f6ad09be517b338c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "F. Britt Snodgrass" Subject: Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application) Date: 1996/11/08 Message-ID: <55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195221133 references: <55rs5t$2a3@nw101.infi.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: InfiNet mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; U; 16bit) Date: 1996-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > > [snip] > > All discussion of the LGPL is irrelevant to GNAT! > > [snip] >-- -- >-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- >-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- >-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- >-- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not -- >-- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be -- >-- covered by the GNU Public License. -- > >As you can see from this there are no additional requirements compared to >using a non-free Ada compiler. You can build proprietary products, embedded >gizmos, or classified software using GNAT with no problems whatsoever in >this department. > >A lot of people have an interest in spreading FUD on this point, so let's >try to keep things clear here. In particular, please READ the licenses that >apply, not ones that don't! > Thank you and others who have corrected my misunderstanding of GNAT's license. I had assumed that since the file "copying.lib" is distributed with GNAT, it's requirements must apply to GNAT's libraries. I did not think to look at the file headers because I wasn't aware that "special exceptions" to the GPL were permitted. I work for a large corporation which currently discourages the use of GNU software. The company lawyers have read the GPL and LGPL and are nervous that we might unknowingly incorporate GPL'd software into a product and then have customers requesting "our" software under the terms of the GPL. I am trying to get this no-GNU policy changed. I need to understand how GNAT's GPL license may or may not differ from that of plain gcc or g77. While I now understand that GNAT may be used to produce propriatary,for-profit executables, the last sentence of the special exception warns me to do so very carefully. Thanks, F. Britt Snodgrass (Team Ada, ada95@fyiowa.infi.net)