Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application)

[WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White)]

In article <55v2eq$8qq@news.nyu.edu>, kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu says...
...snip...

>>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.

  Huh?  What file?  So the GPL still applies?

>
>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.


  All of the above still has me very confused.  You need to make it 
crystal clear to lawyers that there is not a problem.  I do not think that
you and Robert Dewar have completely re-assured Richard, Britt and me that
there is not a problem.  We need to get the lawyers to clear it.  We do not
want to spread FUD.  We want to tell upper management that this is NOT
a barrier.  In the meantime, other companies have a competitive advantage
over ACT for our business.
 
_______________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White                    -- an embedded sys software engineer
WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US --long/cheap alternate I-net address