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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-08 04:40:52 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge
Date: 8 Feb 2002 04:40:51 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202080440.3f75ffcc@posting.google.com>
References: <mailman.1013140805.29162.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1013172052 6168 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2002 12:40:52
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Feb 2002 12:40:52 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19768
Date: 2002-02-08T12:40:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Eric Merritt <cyberlync@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1013140805.29162.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> This doesnt make any sense. I have a project a
> sourceforge based in Ada that is under the modified
> GPL. I think the only diffrence is that I labeled it
> as 'Other/Proprietary License'. They had no issue with
> it at all. 

In fact I would just label it as GPL. Yes, there is a
special exception to the GPL restrictions, but clearly
the GPL applies, in that you can do anything permitted
by the GPL, so since Source Forge is in the business
of ensuring acceptable licenses, it is clear that the
GPL applies equally well here.