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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ACT and the GPL (once again),
 was: Re: Cairo bindings and e-mail license virus bombs
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:29:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87tx12mypv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <6c8e0d3d-20e2-42c1-b2d3-826faca0d019@googlegroups.com>
	<4f8ce908-eff0-46d5-bbca-67a5526006b7@googlegroups.com>
	<87388nnqeb.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <m6as29$lvo$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="97379986223bdbc639cc7042091d26c7";
	logging-data="5605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jBx6wUQSHnrbqwKty/1fu"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y4EWAodTqZCI8498nuinO+VugB8=
	sha1:KK1fUXKocgnQ904aHbiDHiUuiDg=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23959
Date: 2014-12-11T08:29:00+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Clubley writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ada/2014/10/msg00023.html
>
> Are we sure it's an official ACT statement and not just someone's
> opinion ?

It is a statement by an AdaCore representative in response to an
explicit request by a Debian Developer, on a public mailing list.  I
don't think it can get any more official than that :)

> That statement also doesn't match up with David's quote from ACT's
> email above, which is presumably more recent than the 29-Oct-2014
> Debian email linked to above.

No, David is guilty here; he omitted context, URL, attribution and
timestamp in that post, leading to your confusion.  The URL was in his
previous post:

http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/003789.html

> It's also clear from that quote above that GtkAda is considered to be
> pure GPL as far as the distribution in Debian is concerned because
> that's where the Debian notes say Debian obtains the original package
> from.

"is considered" is not a legal term and we Debian Developers prefer to
obtain sources from AdaCore's public Subversion repository, not the
yearly tarballs, whenever possible.

> Sometimes ACT can be their own worst enemy when it comes to promoting
> Ada. :-( How often do the C++ people have to worry about this stuff ?

Right.  Hopefully the latest statement by AdaCore sets things straight.

--
Ludovic Brenta.