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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: No relicense everything now! (was: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?)
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
 <ugi7n3-9it.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <1151413996.881418.65260@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
 <2418185.2jO2KLhFBO@linux1.krischik.com> <1151431127.2179.20.camel@localhost>
 <1151479699.777290.36890@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <1151482047.24349.18.camel@localhost>
From: M E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Date: 28 Jun 2006 15:14:44 +0200
Message-ID: <doy7vh4e2j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.226.55
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151500107 88.72.226.55 (28 Jun 2006 15:08:27 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!xs4all!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!news.netcologne.de!nhp.netcologne.de!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5274
Date: 2006-06-28T15:14:44+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:28 -0700, Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
> > > The GMGPL is certainly GPL compatible.
> > 
> > No they are not.
> 
> >From a licensing point of view, the GMGPL is compatible with the GPL.

> You just can't arbitrarily add the GMGPL exception to GPLed
> source that isn't yours.

George, would you please listen to Martins point and not let fly on
the first sentence you read? Martin say that the warnings Gnat emits
in certain situation, seem to indicate that the _GMGPL_ source would
have to relicenced as GPL. _Not_ the other way around.

Wether that is so or not, is open to debate yet. Perhaps Gnat is wrong
in issuing that warning. But please stick to the point and try to
muddle Martins argument. I'd like that to get cleared up as well.


> No need to make the BCs GPLed.

<snip>

> 
> > Right: My work has to become GPL as well.
> 
> But not the BCs!

And if My  = Grady's ?

Regards -- Markus