Re: Ada to Ada Translator ?

[Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> Optikos writes:
> 
> > On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 1:59:57 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> Optikos writes:
> >> 
> >> > 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.
> >> 
> >> Rubbish.
> >
> > Excellent!  We are making progress.  Finally we agree that your
> > unfounded fear is total rubbish.  There is no way for the RLE to
> > evaporate than to violate one one of the terms of the RLE or of the
> > GPLv3.  Modification of an RLE-licensed file is clearly not one of
> > those violations.
> 
> Your argument boils down to "if a implies x then b implies x" which is,
> as stated, rubbish.

Your line of reasoning effectively boils down to ‘when an RLE+GPLv3-licensed file is modified, the RLE can (under some interpretation) magically dismantle itself in ways that are not overtly stated in the RLE and that are not overtly stated in th GPLv3’.  I use the if-fallacy-then-fallacy fallacy to be the proverbial flaw in the Persian rug so that you are drawn into the conversation.  Please quote from RLE+GPLv3 to find any support whatsoever for your “maybe not” novel interpretation where the RLE's Grant of Additional Permission can magically dismantle itself if Patrick (or his code generator) simply performs maintenance transformations of RLE-licensed source code (which would leave the RLE notification intact, unlike AdaCore's removal of the RLE each release of GPL Community Edition).

Your “maybe not” is pure FUD.  All that I am asking you to do is quote snippets from RLE+GPLv3 to support your “maybe not” line of reasoning.  So far, you have not done so.