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: dweller@news.imagin.net (David Weller)
Subject: Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)
Date: 1997/06/30
Message-ID: <5p8q2e$33ng$1@prime.imagin.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 253658574
References: <33B2B5C8.41A0@does.not.exist.com> <5ousck$6rj@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
 <5p0eum$1293$1@prime.imagin.net> <5p1s2l$2a2$1@news.nyu.edu>
Organization: ImagiNet Communications Ltd, Arlington, Texas
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1997-06-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>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.
>

Oops!  I thought I'd made an error in my original comments, because
the modification I was referring to was to the GPL.

Now Richard corrects me that it really was the LGPL.  I'm so confused,
and _I_ started all the confusion.  I apologize!


>>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.
>

Ah, true.  I forgot about that "tiny" condition :-)