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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.91.79 with SMTP id cc15mr34819899obb.31.1415755490992; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:24:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.94.81 with SMTP id f75mr666181qge.5.1415755490884; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:24:50 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!hl2no192384igb.0!news-out.google.com!u1ni8qah.0!nntp.google.com!u7no971116qaz.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:24:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=73.46.72.234; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.46.72.234 References: <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam> <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:24:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190438 Date: 2014-11-11T17:24:50-08:00 List-Id: > Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about the= =20 > GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that the=20 > thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and not the= =20 > compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL compiler is= =20 > GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled program is also= =20 > GPL. No, the GNAT GPL is a "special" case designed to virus software. The FSF ve= rsions do not contain code that would do that and so even though the compil= er is GPL it does not produce executables that would be under the GPL unles= s you linked in some library that did that. > The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in=20 > the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was=20 > thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a=20 > new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out. it is possible I am wrong about the binding code, but I am under the impres= sion they hold that anything produced by their public compiler is GPL unles= s you have GNAT PRO. > Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the posts= =20 > regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my=20 > understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a=20 > server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How is= =20 > the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server application= =20 > that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL version? Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your binari= es only using them server side you do not have to share the source. Honestly I am actually a fan of the GPL and hope you will when you can shar= e the sources and of course changes and extensions to Gnoga as well. The FSF versions do work with Gnoga as well. (For windows MinGW will be upd= ated soon and will work and for Linux you need for now Debian sid) David Botton