* GPLv3 and the GMGPL
@ 2006-02-07 21:27 Nick Roberts
2006-02-08 4:16 ` Jeffrey Creem
2006-02-23 0:51 ` Waldek Hebisch
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Roberts @ 2006-02-07 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) - http://www.fsf.org - is currently
canvassing opinion before finalising a new version of the General Public
License (GPLv3). A draft is available for comment:
http://gplv3.fsf.org
Ada software published under the current version of the GPL (GPLv2)
tends to carry a special exception, which (since I suppose it originated
with GNAT) is generally called the GNAT-Modified GPL (or GMGPL):
"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."
The new GPL (in its current draft) defines what it calls the "Complete
Corresponding Source Code" in a way suggests (to me) that the GNAT
modification might no longer be required, in many cases. This is because
the new definition provides an exception:
"As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not
include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally
included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential
component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable
or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside
from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the
work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to
implement a widely used or standard interface, the implemention of which
requires no patent license not already generally available for software
under this License."
I suspect that most of the actual difficulties the GNAT modification was
added to resolve are now solved by the new wording of the GPLv3.
Actually, the draft GPLv3 is moderately radical*. It introduces limited
retaliation against 'patent aggression' and defiance of Digital Rights
Management (DRM) technology. Apparently Linus Torvalds (inventor of the
Linux kernel and figurehead of its continuing development) finds this a
little too radical:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/0498.html
Quite frankly, I rather agree with the FSF about it. (I am not generally
a huge fan of the FSF.)
I am curious. Does anyone have any plans to use the GPLv3 for an Ada
project? If so, why? Do you think it would obviate the need for the GNAT
modification for your project?
--
Nick Roberts
*oxymoron?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GPLv3 and the GMGPL
2006-02-07 21:27 GPLv3 and the GMGPL Nick Roberts
@ 2006-02-08 4:16 ` Jeffrey Creem
2006-02-23 0:51 ` Waldek Hebisch
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-02-08 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
Nick Roberts wrote:
> I am curious. Does anyone have any plans to use the GPLv3 for an Ada
> project? If so, why? Do you think it would obviate the need for the GNAT
> modification for your project?
>
I don't see anything in that wording that attempts to take the place of
the GMGPL.
It is solving a different problem. If I were to release a general
purpose library under the GPL V3 and someone used it to create a
program, they would be required to license their program under the GPL
(or at least a "free" as in speach software license). That is fine if
that is what I want, but if I want something closer to a slightly
relaxed set of LGPL rules I still need GMGPL to get there for a language
like Ada or C++.
The new exception in the GPL V3 is there so that if I create a program,
and I want it to be a GPL program, I can meet the terms of the GPL when
I distribute the source code without having to distribute source code
for the OS, compiler and standard libraries (e.g. florist) in order to
be GPL compliant.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GPLv3 and the GMGPL
2006-02-07 21:27 GPLv3 and the GMGPL Nick Roberts
2006-02-08 4:16 ` Jeffrey Creem
@ 2006-02-23 0:51 ` Waldek Hebisch
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Waldek Hebisch @ 2006-02-23 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org> wrote:
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) - http://www.fsf.org - is currently
> canvassing opinion before finalising a new version of the General Public
> License (GPLv3). A draft is available for comment:
>
> http://gplv3.fsf.org
>
> Ada software published under the current version of the GPL (GPLv2)
> tends to carry a special exception, which (since I suppose it originated
> with GNAT) is generally called the GNAT-Modified GPL (or GMGPL):
>
> "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."
>
> The new GPL (in its current draft) defines what it calls the "Complete
> Corresponding Source Code" in a way suggests (to me) that the GNAT
> modification might no longer be required, in many cases. This is because
> the new definition provides an exception:
>
> "As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need not
> include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is normally
> included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential
> component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the operating system on
> which the executable runs or a compiler used to produce the executable
> or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside
> from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the
> work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to
> implement a widely used or standard interface, the implemention of which
> requires no patent license not already generally available for software
> under this License."
>
> I suspect that most of the actual difficulties the GNAT modification was
> added to resolve are now solved by the new wording of the GPLv3.
>
GPL Version 2 section 3 contains the following:
: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
: not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
: source or binary form) with the major components (compiler,
: kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
: runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Both the the exception in GPL 2 and the quoted text form GPL 3 allow
creation of GPL-ed programs which hook into closed-source infrastructure.
GPL 2 is probably more explicit, but IMHO novelty of GPL 3 is that
GPL 3 allows GPL-ed binary linked with closed-source JVM, while GPL 2
would exclude JVM (since usually it is not a part of the OS).
GMGPL allows closed-source program which hook into GMGPL-ed infrastructure
-- that is quite different.
Disclaimer: I did not look at GPL 3, just comment the enclosed quote.
--
Waldek Hebisch
hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-23 0:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-02-07 21:27 GPLv3 and the GMGPL Nick Roberts
2006-02-08 4:16 ` Jeffrey Creem
2006-02-23 0:51 ` Waldek Hebisch
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox