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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c94f:: with SMTP id z76mr5140863iof.133.1558472063842; Tue, 21 May 2019 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7f8b:: with SMTP id t11mr50900otp.110.1558472063625; Tue, 21 May 2019 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!u76no13091ita.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni44itc.0!nntp.google.com!i64no13319iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.234.171; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.234.171 References: <100ad407-090e-4316-9746-a4469568b53e@googlegroups.com> <477352cf-80d0-458c-b64a-4605557fef8f@googlegroups.com> <36cf3be3-0ab0-48d4-bffa-e49c624e73ff@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada to Ada Translator ? From: Optikos Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 20:54:23 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56359 Date: 2019-05-21T13:54:23-07:00 List-Id: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 4:42:03 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: > Optikos writes: >=20 > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:08:33 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: > >> "G.B." writes: >=20 > >> > It does not extend to derivative works which you seem to have in > >> > mind when mentioning to fork. > >>=20 > >> 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > > 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 >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. Where does it say that in the licence(s)? The comprehension of multiple places, taken together: 1) RLE: =E2=80=9CThis GCC Runtime Library Exception (=E2=80=98Exception=E2= =80=99) is an =E2=80=A2additional permission=E2=80=A2 under section 7 of th= e GNU General Public License, version 3 (=E2=80=98GPLv3=E2=80=99).=E2=80=9D Hence, anything that GPLv3 permits being done to copies of this file still = stand as permissible, including Patrick modifying it. 2) RLE: =E2=80=9CIt applies to a given file (the =E2=80=98Runtime Library= =E2=80=99) that bears a notice placed by the =E2=80=A2copyright holder=E2= =80=A2 of the file stating that the file is governed by GPLv3 along with th= is Exception.=E2=80=9D Note that FSF is the original copyright holder and that FSF placed RLE noti= fication 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 tha= t contains the modifications. Patrick would presumably choose to not remov= e the RLE in his derivative-work copies (although he could do so [just as A= daCore does] to convert them to pure GPLv3 without the RLE. So =E2=80=9Cth= e copyright holder=E2=80=9D is FSF for ancestral portions of this RLE-licen= sed file and =E2=80=9Cthe copyright holder=E2=80=9D is Patrick for his modi= fications. (Patrick as a matter of convenience to his users might optional= ly assign his right to copy to FSF to make pull requests possible and to al= lay any legal fears of Patrick's users, but this is not absolutely required= .) 3) GPLv3: =E2=80=9CYou =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2may convey=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2 a wor= k based on the Program, or the =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2modifications=E2= =80=A2=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2 to produce it from the Program, in the form of sou= rce code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of t= hese conditions: =E2=80=A6 [elided for brevity] =E2=80=A6 c) =E2=80=A6=C2=A0This License will therefore apply, =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2=E2= =80=A2=E2=80=A2along with any applicable section 7 additional terms [i.e., = the RLE] =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2, to the whole of the work, an= d all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. =E2=80=A6 [elided for brevity]=E2=80=9D Hence, the RLE-licensed modified file is able to be conveyed (i.e., distrib= uted) 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 p= rior 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. >=20 > 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 a= n executable also would cause the RLE to evaporate. But no such RLE evapor= ation occurs, neither when compiling to object code nor when linking as an = executable. Once again, the FUD has been dismantled, replaced by plain-lan= guage reading of the RLE+GPLv3 that directly states & lucidly teaches its w= isdom for the commonperson to understand when reading with comprehension. [I am not a lawyer. This posting is merely a remembrance of my understandi= ng for my own usage. Please consult a copyright-law & contract-law lawyer = if these matters affect you.]