Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

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

> However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
> can do.  .....  I can't incorporate
> GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
> they're paying me to do.


Indeed you cannot incorporate *any* copyrighted code in your code without
permission of the copyright holder. The GPL acts as a general set of
permissions to do certain things, but you can no more incorporate GPL'ed
code into your code without meeting the GPL conditions than you can
incorporate copyrighted Microsoft code into your code without permission!
Both actions would be violations of copyright.

On the other hand, as I repeatedly note, it is definitely the case that
GNAT runtime code with the modified GPL that explicitly expands the
permissions of what you can do with this copyrighted code is another
issue entirely.

Just as a typical propietary compiler contains runtime code, but is delivered
to you with a license that allows you to use this copyrighted runtime code in
your own applications, the modified GPL provides exactly the same permission
to use GNAT runtime code in your applications.

Yes, you may want your lawyers to check out the modified GPL to make sure
that it meets your requirements, just as you may want to have your lawyer
check the runtime license for your proprietary compiler to make sure that
it meets your requirements. In practice, this checking out process is
typically easier with the modified GPL, since it goes out of its way
to confer maximum rights, and minimal restrictions, whereas many commercial
runtime licenses are very much more restrictive (e.g. they may forbid any
user of the product incorporating the runtime code from doing reverse
engineering on these components).