Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

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

> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus.rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>
>> Well, yes. "GM" stands for an exception applying to GPLed software.
>> In this sense the "GM" part doesn _change_ the license
>> text, though of course it does permit using of the software
>> in programs that don't use a GPL compatible license.
>
> And this is something the GPL wants to prevent.

Yes and no. Derived works are still under GPL, but the GM tries (in my
opinion justified) to fix the problem that a compiled program in a
language (Ada) becomes suddenly a derived work because it links again
the run-time (which is after all an implementation detail in the
compiler wether I _generate_ code as needed or link to a library).

Some people (like me) would even argue, that linking a run time
against a program simply doesn't make it a derived work -- at least
that is how I understand german copyright law. A derived work would
be, say, a different compiler, but in german copyright there exists
the concept of "freie Bearbeitung" which applies when

 "Eine so genannte freie Bearbeitung liegt vor, wenn der Eindruck des
 Originals gegen�ber demjenigen der neuen Werke
 verblasst. In diesem Fall l�sst das Urheberrecht eine
 Nutzung unabh�ngig vom Einverst�ndnis des Sch�pfers des
 Ausgangswerkes zu."

(The impression of the original (in the derived work) pales against
the new work). Usually that's applied to using elements or quotes from
somebody elses work in yours (like in a collage). But my Ada program
doesn't even do something similar to the Ada compiler. So I'd guess it
falls under "freie bearbeitung" in german copyright law.

Not that I'm really interested to subvert the GPL. But I certainly
dislike business models that rely on "contamination by linking" to
fuel / enforce a dual licensing scheme for users of a work (not
redistributor, note the difference).

>> (The fact that GMGPL is just GPL with exception becomes noticeable
>> when you start making changes to GMGPLed software: the exception
>> applies to instance of the software as given to you, not as
>> changed by you.)
>
> I think it's an interesting question if the GMGPL is 'just GPL with
> exeption' or a different license like e.g. LGPL.

Oh no. Not that again! :-).

> There were statements from Adacore saying their license never changed
> when in reality they changed it from GMGPL to GPL (for software from
> the libre site). 

Yes. They had a some difficulties to percieve that there ever was a
linking exception and that the text at the web site suddenly stopped
mentioning it. Interesting enough, some weeks after that performance
they started to distribute source from which the linking exception had
be stripped ecxplicitely (that was GNAT GPL 2006 and accompanying
libraries). Strange that they stripped something that "was never
there", "never changed" and/or "had no meaning".

> If GMGPL is 'just GPL with exception' then 'the license never
> changed' is an interpretation that is compatible with reality,
> otherwise it isn't.

GPL allows excpetions and - I hear -- allows any redistributor to drop
them. So, I think, GMGPL is some kind of GPL and dropping the
exception would have been OK, according to the letter. GPL3 doesn't
fix that problem ("hey we only become freer when linking exceptions
are dropped")

Just let's hope, SUSE/Novel and others never discover that as business
model: "Our Glibc is pure GPL. If you want to have an LGPL Glibc you
need to buy the enterprise edition which costs many $$$$$'s". That
would certainly f*** the free software movement, but would hardly
provoke an outcry from the consumers / users: "I can't program, so
what?".

Regards -- Markus