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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-01 15:32:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-144.cvx6.telinco.NET!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Containers package Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:30:04 -0000 Message-ID: References: <72cY7.642$wp1.383@www.newsranger.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-144.cvx6.telinco.net (212.1.156.144) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1009927929 24433194 212.1.156.144 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18424 Date: 2002-01-01T23:30:04+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:72cY7.642$wp1.383@www.newsranger.com... > In article , Nick Roberts says... > >write a book). I am going to release it under the LGPL. > > The LGPL isn't really all that appropriate to Ada packages. For one thing, it > could be (and has been) argued that instantiation of a generic's code is > inclusion and not simple linking against a library, and thus any user would have > to GPL their code. I will put a special clause in a comment in source files countering this problem. > For another, it actually requires that you provide all > end-users with compilers and any other tools they might need to recompile the > library and relink the program when a new version of the library comes out. I assume this idea is based on a skim of the licence (section 6?). In fact, no such condition is imposed on anyone, except under certain very specific circumstances (described in section 6). Furthermore, as I am the copyrightholder, the notion that my own licence prevents me from doing something is a wee bit silly: do you think I would sue myself for breach of my own licence? > For situations where your code gets copied directly into someone else's object > files (and you don't want that to render their code GPL only), it is generally > suggested that you use something like the license used for Bison (GNU's YACC > clone). See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF for a > discussion. Gnat's GMGPL is a license of this ilk. > > The LGPL was written for link libraries (eg: "libfoo.a"). It isn't very useful > outside that domain. See above. -- Happy New Year, Nick Roberts