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: f65d0,bd4d2fccdf730b16 X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/06/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253028064 References: <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.gcc Date: 1997-06-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Wes said <> What exactly is the concern here. For things like the Booch components the modified GPL would give you as much freedom as the ACL. The only thing the ACL allows that the GPL definitely does not (and quite deliberately so) is for some company to make a proprietary version of the components with some improvements, and this proprietary version could have arbitrary restrictions., Wes, I can't tell if there is some reason concern here, or whether this is typical misinformed GPL FUD :-) Is there some reason you perceive that using, e.g. runtime units from GNAT or GLADE with the modified GPL is somehow problematic for you. Of course, if what you are interested in is actually *being* the company that takes Dave Weller's work and makes a proprietary copy of it, then I would understand why you preferred the ACL, but if all you are thinking of doing is using the components, either in original or modified form, in your software, then I don't see the issue.