Re: Win32Ada

[kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

In article <3654CC2B.63DD8D5D@easystreet.com> Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:
>Richard Kenner wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
>> limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
>> you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
>> obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
>> or group of people.
>
>The GPL or some of the explanatory materials that were distributed with
>it points out that there may be some conflicts between the GPL and other
>contractual arrangements with other parties that bind particular users of 
>GPL'd items. The GPL does not bend on account of those arrangements, and 
>it's up to the user of the GPL'd items to act according to the GPL or to 
>refrain from using the GPL'd items.

That's true, but is totally irrelevant to above issue.

>If a GPL'd item or a derivative of a GPL'd item is created in a way that 
>some other conflicting license or contract also applies, then whoever 
>tried to satisfy both arrangements probably made a mistake.  Of course,
>with something like Win32 bindings, the existence of a conflicting 
>requirement would only be determined by direct contact with the
>attorneys of MS, something we wouldn't wish on anyone, so the area is perhaps
>inherently murky. 

I also don't follow this, since the Win32 bindings are not GPL'd.  They are
distributed along with GNAT on NT, but, as the GPL says, 

    In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
    with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
    a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
    the scope of this License.

>Here's something that I don't understand about the GPL:  Does it allow
>any restrictions on copying of GPL'd works?  

Only those specifically allowed by the GPL, which is that the copied
work must have precisely the same GPL restrictions on it.

>Are any means by which I come into possession of a copy of GPL'd work
>legitimate,

Not necessarily, since there is the possibility of a restriction by a
third party unknown to the original author or person who made the
copy.  This gets into a very gray area of the GPL.  The kind of thing
I'm talking about is a government deciding that some GPL'd encryption
software is "too secure" and forbidding export or a determination
that a patent of some third party has been infringed.  Paragraph 7 of
the GPL makes it clear that if somebody is aware of these
restrictions, they are not permitted to distribute the software at
all, but if they don't know about them you can easily have the sort of
situation you asked about: where a copy is made but that copy is not
legitimate.