comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application)
Date: 1996/11/08
Date: 1996-11-08T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55v2eq$8qq@news.nyu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net


In article <55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net> "F. Britt Snodgrass" <ada95@fyiowa.infi.net> writes:
>I did not think to look at the file headers because I
>wasn't aware that "special exceptions" to the GPL were permitted.

How could they *not* be permitted?  The GPL itself isn't being changed
here, it's just that the copyright is only including by reference
a different set of conditions than referencing the whole GPL would
produce.

>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.

First of all, if you'd "unknowingly" incorporate GPL'ed software into
a product, I'd be concerned you also might unknowingly incorporate
some third-party licenced software into your product.  Most companies
carefully track what software is part of their products, so I'm
confused why you don't.

Secondly, your lawyers might want to consider NeXT.  This is a company
whose sole propriety asset is compiled using GPL'ed compilers and
linked with GPL'ed libraries.

>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.

What are you talking about?  What's your concern here?

All that sentence is saying is that if you have executable that would
be covered by the GPL by virtue of including a GPL'ed file, the mere
presence of that library file doesn't mean you can ignore that fact.
In other words, that fact that GNAT itself contains that file does not
mean that it no longer is covered by the GPL.

Vague concerns can't be dealt with.  You and your company's lawyers needs
to come up with specific scenarios that you are concerned about.  Then
discuss them with RMS or people on this group who will be happy to explain
why each of those scenarios can't happen.




  parent reply	other threads:[~1996-11-08  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1996-11-07  0:00 LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application) F. Britt Snodgrass
1996-11-07  0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-08  0:00   ` F. Britt Snodgrass
1996-11-08  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-08  0:00     ` Richard Kenner [this message]
1996-11-09  0:00       ` Robert S. White
1996-11-08  0:00         ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-09  0:00         ` Richard Kenner
1996-11-09  0:00         ` Fergus Henderson
1996-11-09  0:00           ` Robert Dewar
     [not found]             ` <562p07$cf8@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>
1996-11-09  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-08  0:00   ` Jon S Anthony
1996-11-07  0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1996-11-07  0:00 ` Dale Pontius
1996-11-07  0:00   ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox