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: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.snarked.org!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:30:27 +0000
Organization: none
Message-ID: <87y4rgkbpo.fsf@ixod.org>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <w118w.110576$5U6.95784@fx01.iad> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam>
 <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com>
 <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad>
 <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com>
 <mqw8w.739469$w82.82975@fx21.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <1415776387.7960.41.camel@obry.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="1b3e5cba9e4d07a53741e6f3d1717925";
 logging-data="382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KsQgKSEligG7AsQ96U2hd"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oz3pQeeD8R12KtyQt1OVYjUCHkw=
 sha1:DC94sqi9UKHs1647sxZXHnUI5gk=
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190453
Date: 2014-11-12T09:30:27+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

> Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 à 16:50 -0800, David Botton a écrit :
>> By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code,
>> etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e.
>> regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.
>
> Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.
> And after all we all know that we can sell Open Source software. The
> only requirement is to make available the sources if someone ask for
> them when you sell the software.
>
> I bet this is in fact no big deal for many applications.

In the case of the full GPL, the requirements are far more than that!
The customer have the ability to tweak and sell it themselves, etc.

-- Mark