Re: LGPL Requirements (was: Selecting Ada95 compiler for MSDOS realtime application)

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Robert White says

"All of the above still has me very confused.  You need to make it
crystal clear to lawyers that there is not a problem.  I do not think that
you and Robert Dewar have completely re-assured Richard, Britt and me that
there is not a problem.  We need to get the lawyers to clear it."

  It *is* quite clear to lawyers, but you need to give them the right
  material to look at. Remember this thread started with an incorrect
  uniformed guess that GNAT used the LGPL, and a comment that some lawyers
  did not like the LGPL. The latter may be true, but given that GNAT does
  NOT use the LGPL, not relevant

  By all means have your lawyers read the GPL, and then read the exception
  clause that is used in the license for GNAT components, as indeed you
  should have them read ALL copyright and license provisions for ANY
  components you intend to include in your software. If your lawyer
  has a question, then, as Richard noted, have him get in touch with
  RMS, or with us, and we will explain. In particular, if you or your
  lawyer have some idea of a scenario which is worrisome, then explain
  it to us, and we will explain to you why your worry is groundless.

  We can't react to vague unarticulated concerns. Such concerns without
  specific questions are indeed in the FUD category :-)

  Lots of major companies, including Silicon Graphics, Lockheed, Boeing, and
  many others are creating proprietary and/or classified Ada codes using
  GNAT. Furthermore, in the past, many companies have used GNU C or G++
  to create proprietary software. I gave the example of Nextstep, but there
  are several other companies that use only GNU software to create their
  proprietary software.

  There is no problem here. Why you think there might be is unclear to us,
  since you have not articulated any specific concern that can be addressed.