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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4d70a6d53a28095 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:11:27 -0500 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GtkAda License Question References: <1150717691.939423.322620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:11:28 +0200 Message-ID: <874pygwgvz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZbGgMQbapDy0mHRxQLP0WxCrbtg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.211.217 X-Trace: sv3-Vx7Wt1+wlaL/x1quGhLLL74lF2E4UjvQOmlmuidCfB8nyIJlYW3vQBXJ0jsYVhgMY15dR1pCmlEN6mH!3u6O7t1EOYl1dATz6oJ3qiHJ0Om7bmesUmqr8Pgo5qmf7ivRIkglY83zlRLsVpEkBFX3SSVbiTE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4846 Date: 2006-06-20T07:11:28+02:00 List-Id: M E Leypold writes: >> - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are >> included) is pure GPL > >> - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL > >> - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.) > > Exactly this is where the problem starts. The CVS has GtkAda 2.8.0, > but I won't build it if it is GPL-only. If the binary in the GPL GNAT > bundle is based on identical sources, why would it be under GPL? If > the sources are different, then either the CVS source builds better > than the source on the GPL GNAT bundle or the other way round. Both > situations would incite further questions. When producing a GPL version, AdaCore simply remove the "exception" paragraph from every file using a script before packaging the sources. No magic, and no difference in the actual software. >> In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon >> arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your >> mental health :) > > But only as long as the the upstream licensing doesn't change -- oh so > suddenly -- to GPL. Then all us small developers of graphical gadgets > have either to shell out > $15000 / year just for maintaining our > smallish projects or we pull maintenance very suddenly. > > What joy. That would be a good reason for a fork, then. If sufficiently many people are interested in the maintenance of these tools, it is a realistic proposition. But let's not think of a fork before it is actually necessary. -- Ludovic Brenta.