Re: Ada to Ada Translator ?

[Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 4:42:03 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> Optikos writes:
> 
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:08:33 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> "G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid> writes:
> 
> >> > It does not extend to derivative works which you seem to have in
> >> > mind when mentioning to fork.
> >> 
> >> Agreed that this is a potentially contentious area: the Exception
> >> says that it 'applies to a given file (the "Runtime Library") that
> >> bears a notice placed by the copyright holder of the file stating
> >> that the file is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception' - are
> >> you entitled to maintain the Exception in a derivative work? if you
> >> do, does it count?  (you not being the sole copyright holder).
> 
> I was thinking about whether I could modify a file to which the
> Exception applied and pass that file on to you retaining the Exception;
> since there are now two copyright holders involved.
> 
> > If a legitimate copyright holder places the Runtime Library Exception
> > in a file, then anyone may create derivative works of that file with
> > the Runtime Library Exception still in effect as long as all the
> > restrictions regarding Target Code and Compilation Process being an
> > Eligible Compilation Process are obeyed
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. Where does it say that in the licence(s)?

The comprehension of multiple places, taken together:

1) RLE:  “This GCC Runtime Library Exception (‘Exception’) is an •additional permission• under section 7 of the GNU General Public License, version 3 (‘GPLv3’).”
Hence, anything that GPLv3 permits being done to copies of this file still stand as permissible, including Patrick modifying it.

2) RLE: “It applies to a given file (the ‘Runtime Library’) that bears a notice placed by the •copyright holder• of the file stating that the file is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception.”
Note that FSF is the original copyright holder and that FSF placed RLE notification in the affected file.  But, unless he assigns it to someone else, the right to copy Patrick's modifications to the affected RLE-licensed file reside with Patrick as another copyright holder of the derivative work that contains the modifications.  Patrick would presumably choose to not remove the RLE in his derivative-work copies (although he could do so [just as AdaCore does] to convert them to pure GPLv3 without the RLE.  So “the copyright holder” is FSF for ancestral portions of this RLE-licensed file and “the copyright holder” is Patrick for his modifications.  (Patrick as a matter of convenience to his users might optionally assign his right to copy to FSF to make pull requests possible and to allay any legal fears of Patrick's users, but this is not absolutely required.)

3) GPLv3: “You ••may convey•• a work based on the Program, or the •••modifications••• to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:  … [elided for brevity] …
c) … This License will therefore apply, ••••along with any applicable section 7 additional terms [i.e., the RLE] ••••, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
… [elided for brevity]”
Hence, the RLE-licensed modified file is able to be conveyed (i.e., distributed) as long as the GPLv3 terms & conditions are met.  Presumably Patrick would obey them, so no harm no foul.

Therefore, the text of RLE+GPLv3 clearly overtly state what I stated in a prior posting, without worry and without FUD.

> > Whether the source code (e.g., incremental maintenance; drastic
> > departure) is the derivative work or whether the object code then
> > executable is the derivative work makes no difference to copyright
> > law; they are all derivative works under the GPL.  If Simon's worry
> > applies to source-code derivative works, then it applies to
> > object-code & executable derivative works as well.
> 
> Don't understand why you think this is news.

Simon, if you are worried that modifying RLE-licensed files might cause the RLE to evaporate, then compiling them to object code and linking them as an executable also would cause the RLE to evaporate.  But no such RLE evaporation occurs, neither when compiling to object code nor when linking as an executable.  Once again, the FUD has been dismantled, replaced by plain-language reading of the RLE+GPLv3 that directly states & lucidly teaches its wisdom for the commonperson to understand when reading with comprehension.

[I am not a lawyer.  This posting is merely a remembrance of my understanding for my own usage.  Please consult a copyright-law & contract-law lawyer if these matters affect you.]