From: Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 and the GMGPL
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:16:28 -0500
Date: 2006-02-07T23:16:28-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7t7ob3-uav.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Kg8Gf.272191$vl2.72054@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
Nick Roberts wrote:
> I am curious. Does anyone have any plans to use the GPLv3 for an Ada
> project? If so, why? Do you think it would obviate the need for the GNAT
> modification for your project?
>
I don't see anything in that wording that attempts to take the place of
the GMGPL.
It is solving a different problem. If I were to release a general
purpose library under the GPL V3 and someone used it to create a
program, they would be required to license their program under the GPL
(or at least a "free" as in speach software license). That is fine if
that is what I want, but if I want something closer to a slightly
relaxed set of LGPL rules I still need GMGPL to get there for a language
like Ada or C++.
The new exception in the GPL V3 is there so that if I create a program,
and I want it to be a GPL program, I can meet the terms of the GPL when
I distribute the source code without having to distribute source code
for the OS, compiler and standard libraries (e.g. florist) in order to
be GPL compliant.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-08 4:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-07 21:27 GPLv3 and the GMGPL Nick Roberts
2006-02-08 4:16 ` Jeffrey Creem [this message]
2006-02-23 0:51 ` Waldek Hebisch
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox