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: 103376,1efdd369be089610
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)
Date: 1997/06/28
Message-ID: <5p1s2l$2a2$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 253098703
References: <33B2B5C8.41A0@does.not.exist.com> <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
 <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-06-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net> dweller@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes:
>The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
>terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
>comparison) the GPL and the ACL.

First of all, the exception being referred to is an exception to the
LGPL, not the GPL.  Secondly, it did not originate with ACT, but was
used in the small set of run-time functions used in GCC.

>Obviously, that's more difficult with "multi-source" software like GCC. 

GCC is not "multi-source".  All code to be included in GCC must have
its copyright transferred to the FSF.

Now, it is indeed true that the person who assigns code to the FSF
retains some rights that nobody else does, but that raises a whole
different set of complex issues, which I think would just muddy the
waters yet further and has, so far as I know, never been invoked.