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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.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: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:12:14 -0500 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151413996.881418.65260@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <2418185.2jO2KLhFBO@linux1.krischik.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:12:23 +0200 Message-ID: <8764ilkpjs.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:FnJfCqoCQ7tZIMw5eO88mr5WzGQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.193.201 X-Trace: sv3-mddV1HsrUNJFshlPmU8jlrFfJwrKZemmuuBgPiU9cEULk7zbPg67MleT60aqwROZcoQ5rKZAqgzqHT7!YqO9bnZdX71467/LL1PgCxRjtmpBAuhcqOgFyAb9ap/h8zTdhKDg2xGSl8a54+hek9QdzQxcZgM= 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:5250 Date: 2006-06-28T22:12:23+02:00 List-Id: M E Leypold writes: > Can I: > > - Have sources S1, S2, S3 with S1 and S2 being dirtributed to me > under the GMGPL whereas S3 is GPL. Yes. > - I then compile S1, S2, S3 to X. Yes. > - Obviously X is covered by GPL: I must distribute S1, S2, S3 with X > as the GPL demands. Yes, and you must distribute the sources of X, too, since X must be under terms compatible with the GPL. You can even choose to distribute X under GMGPL. > - But cant' I state that S1, S2 are under GMGPL -- that is, anyone > receiving them is allowed to unbundle them from the source package > of X (which is actually made up from 3 different trees) and can > distribute them (S1, S2) as GMGPL sources or create other GMGPL, > GPL or even closed executables from them. Yes, that's true. To make things clear to the licensee, you can distribute the libraries, and X, in separate source packages. > Question: Is there any contradiction in the license terms or is that > permissible? I don't think there is a contradiction. > Of course one would want to do that for whatever reason ever. I do not > want to discuss the fairness or unfairness of that or what one could > expect the authors of S1, S2 to do or not to do. I just want to know, > wether the authors of S1 and S2 (if they want) license S1 and S2 as > GMGPL and be sure that they can be used in aforesaid manner. Yes, they can. > Or do they have to license as GPL to ensure "linkability" with a GPL > library? No, they don't. The GMGPL already ensures "linkability", it is GPL-compatible. -- Ludovic Brenta.