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-Thread: 103376,7684e927a2475d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other
 licenses related questions...
References: <tLmlg.119263$dW3.82693@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
 <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
 <jowtbdcubc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <e7f7t6$qie$1@online.de>
 <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <e7h852$7h0$1@online.de> <jccum3-trl.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <e7j2i7$4vl$1@online.de> <i0lvm3-h59.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <okmzc2rank.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <m2odwggc1m.fsf@grendel.local>
From: M E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Date: 25 Jun 2006 23:42:30 +0200
Message-ID: <bv3bds9ak9.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.88
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151271384 88.72.230.88 (25 Jun 2006 23:36:24 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5021
Date: 2006-06-25T23:42:30+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
> 
> > But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat.
> 
> Quite a lot of the sources of the GNAT runtime say (c) FSF. Not that

See on of my other posts on that. What I wanted to say: It was not the
FSF forcing a license change from GMGPL to GPL. So no need to point to
the FSF as a reason for that. But didn't I say I won't discuss Gnat
GPL any more? So ...

> you can place any reliance on that, of course.

Nooo, nooo. Of course, not. 

But let's not forget: That was only a rumour coming from a quote
probably quoted a bit outside of its original context. I'd like to see
anyone (ACT especially) try to pull that: That the file header
wouldn't mean anything and the files are actually God-knows-whose. I
don't think that is likely to happen or even have success, so I'm not
going to get all steamed up on that one.

Regards -- Markus