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: 103376,1060de63f71a1a06
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: License of that GNAT patch ?
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:11:09 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87pqibqjvm.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <op.v2vvymhxule2fv@index.ici>
	<de6e4001-ef36-4ad5-83d2-ae7239a9c327@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
	<4e8cb7c8$0$6633$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="1OA4zFoSpXlmU1Oj+RYyiw";
	logging-data="11514"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j47c1ITfVdBxn1Rr6vhg5"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pP/dXm5PhS0V3zP0O3M0H1wCCrI=
	sha1:SA6JNXJViHdnORaAIURtlYRRBnQ=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:22257
Date: 2011-10-05T22:11:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.