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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f6ad09be517b338c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application) Date: 1996/11/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195306759 references: <55rs5t$2a3@nw101.infi.net> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: F. Britt Snodgrass says >Perhaps Richard's comment was made precisely because he has read the >GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) that covers GNAT's libraries. This is confused, that is not the way GNAT's libraries are distributed. It always amazes me that people run off on such irrelevant arguments without even bothering to look! >The LGPL makes no distinction between compilers and any other type of All discussion of the LGPL is irrelevant to GNAT! >I would be happy to have someone convince me I'm reading too much into >the LGPL but it seems pretty clear to me. As much as I like GNAT, using >it to develop embedded software for a non-free commercial product seems >to levy additional requirements compared to using a non-free Ada compiler. >Am I wrong? Yes, completely wrong. You are in fact also misreading the LGPL, but since it is irrelevant to GNAT, there is no point in persuing it. For reference, here is the license used on GNAT runtime components: -- GNAT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under -- -- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- -- -- ware Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later ver- -- -- sion. GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- -- -- OUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY -- -- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License -- -- for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General -- -- Public License distributed with GNAT; see file COPYING. If not, write -- -- to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, -- -- MA 02111-1307, USA. -- -- -- -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- -- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- -- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be -- -- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not -- -- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be -- -- covered by the GNU Public License. -- As you can see from this there are no additional requirements compared to using a non-free Ada compiler. You can build proprietary products, embedded gizmos, or classified software using GNAT with no problems whatsoever in this department. A lot of people have an interest in spreading FUD on this point, so let's try to keep things clear here. In particular, please READ the licenses that apply, not ones that don't!