Re: Interest in sockets package development

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

You're right.  I have been thinking the LGPL <=> Gnat-Modified GPL.  I
intended to Gnat-Modified GPL.  Thank you for pointing that out. ;)

-CRM

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:nX3n7.2191$%u4.2297@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9neodq$1vcs$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Chad R. Meiners says...
> >
> >I am currently developing a LGPL'ed thick binding for sockets in my spare
> >time.  The purpose of this binding is to provide better control of
sockets
>
> Bindings should *not* use the LGPL. That license was designed for link
> libraries, not compiled-in source code. In some ways it is actually *more*
> restrictive than the GPL in this environment.
>
> Most Free binding authors these days use the GPL with exemptions for
"with"ing
> source, as the Gnat runtime does. This is commonly known as the
Gnat-Modified
> GPL, or GMGPL. To do this, you just add the standard GPL notice to your
source
> file headers, but follow it up with this:
>
> -- 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.
> --
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com