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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 07:49:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:50:32 -0400
From: Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades
References: <a790c$4342e299$499532c$1080@ALLTEL.NET>
 <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <oNU0f.3248$4h2.686@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <rVd1f.7719$oc.565@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m2fyree0wz.fsf@grendel.local>
 <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <mrw+A5Ls5qp1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
In-Reply-To: <mrw+A5Ls5qp1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <eLednaybe-pr89veRVn-vg@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Trace: 
 sv3-yGCqi2zDo02QayEPp7cWisgswi6LCiiGupEjSqvY6AnPSDEqYr2DDVbKB5SDF4aPN6n72j+FF5q4zhd!jExlbCFSRfkrco7iUNlZrGhFpMEyIdW7MVGNzBT5WomSoabXi1mLzOX+s4S4BEOaVm0D26E6gA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5493
Date: 2005-10-07T08:50:32-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:
> 
>>Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
>>>affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
>>>would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
>>>and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
>>>rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
>>>different compiler; where's the problem?
>>
>>The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under 
>>the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the 
>>run-time library is GPL.
>>
> 
> 
> Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
> and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
> _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
> created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.
> 

No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers are not 
lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when licensing terms 
are brought to the forefront, they get confused and upset.

I find this to generally be true with all non-trivial license terms 
including that of most free software projects as well as proprietary 
projects.

Of course I can't argue with your core assertion since the developers 
that are now having to confront license issues are people interested in 
Ada...