Re: License of that GNAT patch ?

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Georg Bauhaus writes on comp.lang.ada:
> I understand that this specific patch belongs to the FSF and that,
> therefore, FSF has the right to make an exception?

The FSF is not making an exception, the FSF decides on the license of
each file.

> Is it correct that changing GMGPLed software, e.g.  when creating a
> derivative work, still means that the GPL applies to it without
> exception?  ("If you link *this* unit ...")

No.  If you receive a file under the GPLv3 with Runtime Library
Exception, you may:

- incorporate this file into proprietary software and distribute that
- redistribute the file with unchanged license
- redistribute the file under pure GPLv3

at your choice.

> I'm thinking of the following scenario:
>
> A has published some software X, under the GMGPL.
>
> B modifies X, on behalf of C.
>
> B "wishes" to keep the exception. (Well, because C asked B that it be
> kept). Therefore C can later use the X that B has modified, which
> would still be GMGPLed, for making proprietary closed source software
> products that includes original X with B's modifications. (No longer
> linking *this* unit...)

Correct.  In this scenario, the license of the file is GMGPL all along,
permitting inclusion into proprietary software.  What is your point?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.
The reporting unit should proactively connect the dots, while the
stakeholders prioritize the flexible, underlying, soft cycle issues.