Re: GLADE and GPL (was: what DOES the GPL really say?)

[fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (Roy T. Fielding)]

In <dewar.867556141@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>What exactly are you referrring to? gnatdist is of course under the GPL
>as are all gnat utilities. But the runtime routines that are bound to
>executable programs are indeed under the modified GPL. Please be explicit
>in what you are referring to. 

Sorry, I now see where the confusion is coming from.  The individual
source files do include the exception to the modified GPL, which is
something I hadn't checked.  I was stopped short by the top-level README
and COPYING files, which are plain GPL v2, and the lack of any other
COPYING file in the Garlic subdirectory.  The top-level README should
mention the different terms for what is in Garlic, since they currently
contradict each other (which is bad from any perspective).

On a related note, there is one problem with the modified GPL.  As written,
it doesn't allow the recipient to redistribute the package (or, in my case,
a small component of the package) under the same modified GPL.  I doubt
that is the intention.  You could add that possibility to the list in
the first sentence, i.e.

-- GARLIC is free software;  you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the  GNU General Public License, with or without the single     --
-- exception mentioned below, as published by the Free Software Foundation; --
-- either version 2,  or (at your option)  any later version.               --

However, it would be more appropriate from a legal perspective to make the
modifications within the COPYING file, possibly renaming it GnatGPL, rather
than deal with the issue of having two contradictory terms.  It would
probably be worth it just to avoid these types of discussions.

....Roy