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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:214f:: with SMTP id y15mr9780573ioy.102.1559140139871; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:ea05:: with SMTP id i5mr6247993oih.51.1559140139420; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!c92no20472itd.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni24itc.0!nntp.google.com!i64no20523iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.178.227.154; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.178.227.154 References: <5c6d8e37-b737-4a8b-b601-0d0b4c10756b@googlegroups.com> <29e20858-6e53-4e52-a5e0-6ff7cb0d8f74@googlegroups.com> <1f5a3876-a27a-439a-bcf8-d24d96e437a4@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6b285165-962a-4bde-ae3a-87c72003a08f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler. From: Optikos Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:28:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56396 Date: 2019-05-29T07:28:59-07:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Optikos wrote: > > Maciej Sobczak wrote: > > Optikos wrote: > > > > Hence why Alex was correctly indicating > > > > that GPL Community Edition forestalls > > > > most practical forms of commercial > > > > business activity=20 > > > > > > Wrong. You can write your program (or a=20 > > > library) and sell it in the form of source=20 > > > code with whatever license you wish=20 > > > > Certainly absolutely no one does that > > regarding software that is strictly GPLv3 > > without the Runtime Library Exception!=20 >=20 > Wrong. But let's go back a little to better > understand the workflow.=20 >=20 > 1. You write some code. It can be a standalone > app or a library.=20 >=20 > 2. You can put whatever license you wish on > your source code.=20 >=20 > 3. You can deliver it (the source code!) to your > users with that licens= e.=20 >=20 > Finished.=20 > OK, so you think it might be a good idea to > verify this code a little bit before selling it to > your customers - you know, test it or at least > check whether it compiles at all. So you add an > additional points to the scheme above:=20 >=20 > 1a. You compile your code with whatever > compiler you have.=20 > 1b. You run your tests or perform whatever > other verification activities to make sure that > your product has an expected quality level.=20 >=20 > These two points have no impact on points 2. > and 3. above.=20 Hypothetical =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D after hypothetical =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D= and still more hypothetical =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D fictions. Instead, plea= se give actual names of extant actual projects or commercial products or co= mpanies that do as you say above: receiving a pure-GPLv3 copy of upstream = source code without the Runtime Library Exception then either dual licensin= g it and/or placing nondisclosure agreement (NDA) restrictions on downstrea= m copies of that upstream-obtained GPLv3ed source code without Runtime Libr= ary Exception, which is the case that Alex & I are calling out as the sole = topic of conversation here.