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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,13b7917466f2d19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-09 15:25:11 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0
Date: 9 Oct 2001 15:25:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0110091425.24ba80e4@posting.google.com>
References: <9a575af3.0110020747.2304ce86@posting.google.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110022002.7ccde025@posting.google.com>
 <m3vghvau6m.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110060639.31567261@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.1002421815.788.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3BC16DA1.8D219F94@brighton.ac.uk>
 <mailman.1002537555.4060.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3BC196CF.ACEA8F64@brighton.ac.uk> <EyEw7.21607$ev2.29933@www.newsranger.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1002666311 24817 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2001 22:25:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 22:25:11 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14101
Date: 2001-10-09T22:25:11+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:<EyEw7.21607$ev2.29933@www.newsranger.com>...
> The only real danger here is that the copyright holder 
> could always decide to provide a release under a 
> different license. However, the FSF is the copyright
> holder for Gnat, and I doubt they will ever do that. :-)

To be accurate, the FSF holds the copyrights on the basic
compiler technology, not on all components of the GNAT distribution.
In any case, why is this a "danger". This is
a country which subscribes to international treaties giving
authors copyright control over their work. Why should it
be "dangerous" for them to decide how to execute that
control. If people want to use the GPL, that's indeed
desirable from many points of view, but it is a long step
to declare the use of different licenses as dangerous!