GPLv3 and the GMGPL

GPLv3 and the GMGPL

[Nick Roberts]

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) - http://www.fsf.org - is currently 
canvassing opinion before finalising a new version of the General Public 
License (GPLv3). A draft is available for comment:

    http://gplv3.fsf.org

Ada software published under the current version of the GPL (GPLv2) 
tends to carry a special exception, which (since I suppose it originated 
with GNAT) is generally called the GNAT-Modified GPL (or GMGPL):

"As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this 
         Unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an 
executable, this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable 
to be covered by the GNU General Public License.  This exception does 
not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might 
be covered by the GNU Public License."

The new GPL (in its current draft) defines what it calls the "Complete 
Corresponding Source Code" in a way suggests (to me) that the GNAT 
modification might no longer be required, in many cases. This is because 
the new definition provides an exception:

"As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not 
include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally 
included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential 
component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on 
which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable 
or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside 
from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the 
work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to 
implement a widely used or standard interface, the implemention of which 
requires no patent license not already generally available for software 
under this License."

I suspect that most of the actual difficulties the GNAT modification was 
added to resolve are now solved by the new wording of the GPLv3.

Actually, the draft GPLv3 is moderately radical*. It introduces limited 
retaliation against 'patent aggression' and defiance of Digital Rights 
Management (DRM) technology. Apparently Linus Torvalds (inventor of the 
Linux kernel and figurehead of its continuing development) finds this a 
little too radical:

    http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0498.html

Quite frankly, I rather agree with the FSF about it. (I am not generally 
a huge fan of the FSF.)

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?

-- 
Nick Roberts


*oxymoron?

Re: GPLv3 and the GMGPL

[Jeffrey Creem]

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.

Re: GPLv3 and the GMGPL

[Waldek Hebisch]

Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org> wrote:
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) - http://www.fsf.org - is currently 
> canvassing opinion before finalising a new version of the General Public 
> License (GPLv3). A draft is available for comment:
> 
>     http://gplv3.fsf.org
> 
> Ada software published under the current version of the GPL (GPLv2) 
> tends to carry a special exception, which (since I suppose it originated 
> with GNAT) is generally called the GNAT-Modified GPL (or GMGPL):
> 
> "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this 
>          Unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an 
> executable, this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable 
> to be covered by the GNU General Public License.  This exception does 
> not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might 
> be covered by the GNU Public License."
> 
> The new GPL (in its current draft) defines what it calls the "Complete 
> Corresponding Source Code" in a way suggests (to me) that the GNAT 
> modification might no longer be required, in many cases. This is because 
> the new definition provides an exception:
> 
> "As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not 
> include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally 
> included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential 
> component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on 
> which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable 
> or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside 
> from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the 
> work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to 
> implement a widely used or standard interface, the implemention of which 
> requires no patent license not already generally available for software 
> under this License."
> 
> I suspect that most of the actual difficulties the GNAT modification was 
> added to resolve are now solved by the new wording of the GPLv3.
> 

GPL Version 2 section 3 contains the following:

:     However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
:     not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
:     source or binary form) with the major components (compiler,
:     kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
:     runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Both the the exception in GPL 2 and the quoted text form GPL 3 allow
creation of GPL-ed programs which hook into closed-source infrastructure.
GPL 2 is probably more explicit, but IMHO novelty of GPL 3 is that
GPL 3 allows GPL-ed binary linked with closed-source JVM, while GPL 2
would exclude JVM (since usually it is not a part of the OS).
GMGPL allows closed-source program which hook into GMGPL-ed infrastructure
-- that is quite different.

Disclaimer: I did not look at GPL 3, just comment the enclosed quote.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl