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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: Fraser Wilson Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/29 Message-ID: <925402294.548.49@news.remarQ.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472341383 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g5cb2$bjn$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <7g7o6d$lrj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com X-Trace: 925402294.548.49 KZBGBQC4S164892E1C usenet1.supernews.com Organization: Vegetarian Ada Programmers NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:11:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Originator: fraser@titanic Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: paene lacrimavi postquam Lynn Winebarger scripsit: >In article , >Barry Margolin wrote: >>You can use other licenses than the GPL, but they have to be compatible -- >>they can't impose additional restrictions, but they can give additional >>freedoms. > Just curious - what more freedoms could they give? Ada libraries are commonly distributed with this additional freedom: -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- -- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- -- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- -- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not -- -- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be -- -- covered by the GNU Public License. -- Personally, I'm still wavering between free software purist and pragmatist, so I have no idea whether I like it or not. Fraser.