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 10.70.40.227 with SMTP id a3mr2233475pdl.0.1415817065921;
 Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.140.20.108 with SMTP id 99mr55333qgi.15.1415817065655; Wed,
 12 Nov 2014 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!r10no1956878igi.0!news-out.google.com!u1ni10qah.0!nntp.google.com!i13no1143307qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1ac854d1-36b7-4d06-b673-ad25cdb71736@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=81.193.152.221;
 posting-account=nd46uAkAAAB2IU3eJoKQE6q_ACEyvPP_
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.193.152.221
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <w118w.110576$5U6.95784@fx01.iad> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam>
 <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com>
 <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad>
 <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com>
 <mqw8w.739469$w82.82975@fx21.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <1415776387.7960.41.camel@obry.net>
 <4b21e212-7744-433a-a939-a82ef63ce8cc@googlegroups.com>
 <1415791954.7960.59.camel@obry.net>
 <2c66b776-777b-4530-a1a3-21337cefab85@googlegroups.com>
 <m3vmlm$r0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ac854d1-36b7-4d06-b673-ad25cdb71736@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d8d2b081-e289-4147-aba9-74e7856b5a31@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
From: john@peppermind.com
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:31:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190486
Date: 2014-11-12T10:31:05-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> Yes Stallman's position is that he wished he could put a GPL Virus in the compiler

Have you talked to him personally about that? To me this seems like a pretty unfair statement, given that most if not all other FSF-backed programming languages do not encumber executables with the GPL.

The runtime engine should have been put under LGPL and wasn't (perhaps because LGPL didn't exist at that time?), but I would be surprised to hear that this was in any way RMS's decision.