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: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS
 realtime application)
Date: 1996/11/09
Message-ID: <5613o1$se6@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 195429721
references: <55rs5t$2a3@nw101.infi.net> <dewar.847369597@merv>
 <55ufo9$2ar@nw101.infi.net> <55v2eq$8qq@news.nyu.edu>
 <560nst$bnu@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>
organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White) writes:

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

Let me clarify:

	All that sentence [the last sentence of the special exception
	to the GLP in the copying conditions of a GNAT library file] is
	saying is that if you have an executable that would be covered
	by the GPL by virtue of including a GPL'ed file [some *other*
	GPL'd file], the mere presence of that library file [the GNAT
	library file] doesn't mean you can ignore that fact [the fact
	that your executable is covered by the GPL, since it includes
	that *other* GPL'd file].

	For example, the fact that GNAT itself contains that file [the
	GNAT library file] does not mean that it [the GNAT executable]
	no longer is covered by the GPL.  [The GNAT executable is covered
	by the GPL because the non-library files in GNAT are covered
	by the GLP.]

If your executable is produced by linking only your own proprietry code
and the GNAT libraries, then it is NOT covered by the GPL.

]  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.

If your executable is produced by linking only your own proprietry code
and the GNAT libraries, then it is NOT covered by the GPL.

I'm sure that Rober Dewar, Richard Kenner, or Richard Stallman
will confirm this for you if you ask them.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.