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: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application) Date: 1996/11/08 Message-ID: <55v2eq$8qq@news.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195375767 references: <55rs5t$2a3@nw101.infi.net> <55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net> organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net> "F. Britt Snodgrass" 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.