Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Bj�rn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> > Can I:
> >   - Have sources S1, S2, S3 with S1 and S2 being dirtributed to me
> >     under the GMGPL whereas S3 is GPL.
> >   - I then compile S1, S2, S3 to X.   - Obviously X is covered by
> > GPL: I must distribute S1, S2, S3 with X
> >     as the GPL demands.
> >   - But cant' I state that S1, S2 are under GMGPL -- that is, anyone
> >     receiving them is allowed to unbundle them from the source package
> >     of X (which is actually made up from 3 different trees) and can
> >     distribute them (S1, S2) as GMGPL sources or create other GMGPL,
> >     GPL or even closed executables from them.
> > Question: Is there any contradiction in the license terms or is that
> > permissible?
> 
> That is permissible.
> 
> The result can be confusing, for example if S1 is a program, S2 is
> some library that the program needs, and S3 is Libgnat. I think most
> people are used to assuming that the machine code of a program will
> have the same license as the source code. In this case it won't, and
> that's going to confuse people, but no, there's nothing in the license
> terms that forbids this.
> 
> > Note that I thing, that the builder of the excutable X cannot strip
> > the linking exceaption from the libs S1 and S2 since he/she has not
> > changed the libs. He would have to refrain from using them if he is
> > not allowed to link with S3.
> 
> I disagree here. I think you can take GMGPL code, strip the exception
> and redistribute it as pure GPL but otherwise unmodified. You
> shouldn't do it, because it would serve no purpose other than FUD, but
> I think it's allowed. I'm not entirely sure about that though.

Hm. I now begin to doubt wether you're ever allowed to strip the
exception from a derived work. I assume the LE (linking exception
forms on unit or document with the GPL. Where the GPL says "this
license" it should in the GMGPL case mean GPL + LE => GMGPL. 

If that is right, one could force an executable under GPL by inserting
files that are pure GPL into the source. But it should not be possible
to strip the linking exceaption from those parts that have them.

Of course everything can be relicensed under another license: If _all_
copyright holders agree. I do not want to wake sleeping dogs here, but
I suggest that anyone intrested in the question tries to check
copyright history of and contributors to GtkAda and Florist.

At leaset some people that wrote in c.l.a. seem not to have signed
over their right to ACT when contributing.


Regards -- Markus