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

[kenner@jim.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

In article <560nst$bnu@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White) writes:
>  Huh?  What file?  So the GPL still applies?

In general, no.  Let me try again.

Consider two files: R, which is in the GNAT RTL and covered by the
"special exception" and X, some GPL'ed file not part of GNAT and which
does not have this exception.

If you make an executable containing X, but not R, clearly the GPL
applies to that executable.

If you make an executable containing R, but not X, the special
exception means that the GPL does *not* apply to that executable.

The last sentence is there for the case of an executable containing
*both* X and R.  It is making it clear that if you had an executable
containing X which is subject to the GPL, you cannot avoid having the
GPL apply to that executable by *adding* R.

Clear now?

>All of the above still has me very confused.  You need to make it 
>crystal clear to lawyers that there is not a problem. 

It's logically impossible to prove a negative.  Sorry.

>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.

Why is that?  Do you know any compiler whose run-time libraries are
*not* copyrighted and licensed?  In *all* cases, you need to carefully
read the applicable terms and conditions to make sure you can legally
use them in your executables and what, if any, restrictions they
impose on redistribution of your product.  Be sure your lawyers review
these as well.

By that measure, GNAT cannot possibly be worse than any other compiler
because it imposes *no* restrictions whatsoever.

But you need to decide what compiler is best for you using whatever
criteria you find important and make your choice on that basis.