Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[jhc0033]

If I install GNAT from Cygwin or my Linux distribution, as part of
GCC, is there any way to know for sure which version of the runtime
it's using? I wouldn't want to use the one that forces me to GPL my
own code.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

All programs that are compiled with GNU components are force to GPL 2 
or 3.

Explained in a number of web sites, such as Adacore.  You must use GNAT 
that come with the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL). These are limited to 
Ada 95 versions compiled and packaged back in the mid 1990s or use the 
pay version (GNAT PRO).  Most archived versions have been updated to 
GPL 2 and GPL 3. Which mean that GNAT Ada 95 and at the movement all 
Ada 2005 compilers (GNAT only) are under GPL 2 or 3, which mean your 
code must be under GPL.

To know for sure, read the 'license.txt' that comes with GNAT package.

In <0b115c04-ead8-4cec-8867-94ca9632a5b9@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com> writes:
>If I install GNAT from Cygwin or my Linux distribution, as part of
>GCC, is there any way to know for sure which version of the runtime
>it's using? I wouldn't want to use the one that forces me to GPL my
>own code.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ivan Levashew]

anon пишет:
> All programs that are compiled with GNU components are force to GPL 2 
> or 3.
I'm sure Debain distribution enjoys GMGPL version of RTL.

-- 
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 658 bytes --]

Check with the true GNAT creator and maintainers. Adacore.com
Any GNAT version older than GNAT 3.15 such as GNAT 3.15p must 
be under GPL 2 or 3. And that means GNAT Ada 2005 is GPL 2 or 3.
If the Debain maintainer has change this or is allowing an illegal 
version to exist the Debain maintainers may be in some legal hot water.

In <g0kute$7d5$2@registered.motzarella.org>, Ivan Levashew <octagram@bluebottle.com> writes:
>anon пишет:
>> All programs that are compiled with GNU components are force to GPL 2 
>> or 3.
>I'm sure Debain distribution enjoys GMGPL version of RTL.
>
>-- 
>If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ivan Levashew]

anon пишет:
> Check with the true GNAT creator and maintainers. Adacore.com
> Any GNAT version older than GNAT 3.15 such as GNAT 3.15p must 
> be under GPL 2 or 3. And that means GNAT Ada 2005 is GPL 2 or 3.
> If the Debain maintainer has change this or is allowing an illegal 
> version to exist the Debain maintainers may be in some legal hot water.

https://libre.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq
> The license of other versions of the GNAT compiler, i.e. versions 
> that are derived from AdaCore sources but that are not obtained
> directly from AdaCore, must be ascertained from the entity from which
> the other version of the GNAT compiler was obtained

Lest's ascertain a license in Gentoo, for instance
http://www.gentoo-portage.com/dev-lang/gnat-gcc

Any further doubts?

-- 
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3951 bytes --]


The only reason a person want to re-license an Ada source code is to 
create "Close Source". Adacore has limited that to GNAT PRO version 
or you must use a non-GNAT (Adacore) Ada.  Which means the Ada 
spec is limited to "Ada 95" only at the movement.

And unless you have GNAT PRO if you sell or give any binary version it 
is under the GPL and you must give the source code.  And the GMGPL 
is only given from Adacore not any other party for GNAT PRO.

The following parts from libre.adacore.com FAQ proves my point! And 
the current GPL version is 3 but you might find or have a older package 
that license under GPL version 2. 

Licensing:

What is the license of GNAT Pro?
    The GNAT Pro tools are licensed under the GNU General Public License 
    (GPL), while the GNAT Pro runtime and libraries are licensed under the 
    GNAT Modified GPL (GMGPL). The GMGPL guarantees that *executables* 
    generated by GNAT Pro can be distributed under customer-specific terms 
    and conditions. Specifically, the GMGPL ensures that customers can 
    generate proprietary, classified, or otherwise restricted executables.

What is the license of the GNAT GPL Edition?
    Everything (tools, runtime, libraries) in the GNAT GPL Edition is 
    licensed under the General Public License (GPL). This ensures that 
    executables generated by the GNAT GPL Edition are Free Software 
    and that source code is made available with the executables, giving 
    the freedom to recipients to run, study, modify, adapt, and 
    redistribute sources and executables under the terms of the GPL.

I would like to release my software under the ABC license, which is 
incompatible with the GPL. What should I do?

    If the ABC license is a Free Software license according to the FSF, 
    then read the following Q&A. If the ABC license is not a Free 
    Software license then it is the intention of the GPL distribution of 
    GNAT to restrict your freedom. For distribution of proprietary 
    software, we suggest and recommend the use of GNAT Pro, which, 
    while still being Free Software, comes with more liberal licensing 
    permitting this kind of use.

I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is 
a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible 
with the GPL. What should I do?

    The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on 
    your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with respect 
    to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who wants to 
    build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using either the 
    GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler. If you want to 
    *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the compiler in 
    the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be licensed under 
    the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your sources under 
    the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing.




In <g0l4v2$7jc$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Ivan Levashew <octagram@bluebottle.com> writes:
>anon пишет:
>> Check with the true GNAT creator and maintainers. Adacore.com
>> Any GNAT version older than GNAT 3.15 such as GNAT 3.15p must 
>> be under GPL 2 or 3. And that means GNAT Ada 2005 is GPL 2 or 3.
>> If the Debain maintainer has change this or is allowing an illegal 
>> version to exist the Debain maintainers may be in some legal hot water.
>
>https://libre.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq
>> The license of other versions of the GNAT compiler, i.e. versions 
>> that are derived from AdaCore sources but that are not obtained
>> directly from AdaCore, must be ascertained from the entity from which
>> the other version of the GNAT compiler was obtained
>
>Lest's ascertain a license in Gentoo, for instance
>http://www.gentoo-portage.com/dev-lang/gnat-gcc
>
>Any further doubts?
>
>-- 
>If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Georg Bauhaus]

anon wrote:
> The only reason a person want to re-license an Ada source code is to 
> create "Close Source". Adacore has limited that to GNAT PRO version 
> or you must use a non-GNAT (Adacore) Ada.  Which means the Ada 
> spec is limited to "Ada 95" only at the movement.

This conclusion is strange. The FSF makes GCC available, with
linking exceptions (GMGPL in the Ada case), and they have the
right to do so because of their presence when received,
and copyright assignments.
(Representatives of AdaCore have explained this at length on
comp.lang.ada.)

As a FSF GNAT user, you are just on your own, or on some
communications channel, if you use a GNAT without a support
from a company that offers GNAT support.

>  And the GMGPL 
> is only given from Adacore not any other party for GNAT PRO.

GMGPL GNAT is available from the FSF, for example.
The FSF also explains why they have linking exceptions
etc. go with some of their software,

> The following parts from libre.adacore.com FAQ proves my point!

Then your point is only about GNAT GPL edition from AdaCore.
There are more GNATs than this fine one.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[tmoran]

>The FSF also explains why they have linking exceptions
>etc. go with some of their software,
  If my program uses calls on proprietary Microsoft SDKs, or calls
subroutines in a library supplied with the compiler, that's OK.  But
I understand that if my program uses anything from some other proprietary
library (a binding to something, or device drivers, say), then I cannot
sell, give, or in any way distribute a binary copy of my program, since it
clearly could not contain complete source.  Correct?

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ludovic Brenta]

tmoran@acm.org writes:
>>The FSF also explains why they have linking exceptions
>>etc. go with some of their software,
>   If my program uses calls on proprietary Microsoft SDKs, or calls
> subroutines in a library supplied with the compiler, that's OK.  But
> I understand that if my program uses anything from some other proprietary
> library (a binding to something, or device drivers, say), then I cannot
> sell, give, or in any way distribute a binary copy of my program, since it
> clearly could not contain complete source.  Correct?

If you distribute any program in binary form, you must do so under
terms compatible with the licenses of *all* libraries it uses.  If the
terms are incompatible, then you may not distribute your program at
all.  The details, of course, are what matters here; you should check
the specific licenses of the libraries you mean to use.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Georg Bauhaus]

anon wrote:
> Check with the true GNAT creator and maintainers.

I'm curious, does AdaCore have ways to legally represent
the announced copyright holders of GNAT on behalf of the
FSF? GNAT Copyrights are annouced for
- the FSF,
- The University of Toronto,
- Florida State University,
- The European Space Agency,
- Universidad Politecnica de Madrid.

> And that means GNAT Ada 2005 is GPL 2 or 3.

And the library is with or without special exception. Depending
from where you get the license.
In Debian, license status is described, with references, in the
file
/usr/share/doc/gnat-4.[12]-base/copyright

> If the Debain maintainer has change this or is allowing an illegal 
> version to exist the Debain maintainers may be in some legal hot water.

They didn't change AdaCore's GPL edition.
AdaCore's GNAT GPL edition is available from AdaCore.
Debian's GNAT is available as part of Debian, and is not
derived from AdaCore's GNAT GPL edition.

A further reference is the Debian Policy for Ada,
See http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html

These resources and perhaps the FSF Licensing FAQs should
render presumptions about the Debian maintainers' work needless.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Steve]

"anon" <anon@anon.org> wrote in message 
news:LTmXj.345584$cQ1.268308@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> All programs that are compiled with GNU components are force to GPL 2
> or 3.
>
> Explained in a number of web sites, such as Adacore.  You must use GNAT
> that come with the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL). These are limited to
> Ada 95 versions compiled and packaged back in the mid 1990s or use the
> pay version (GNAT PRO).  Most archived versions have been updated to
> GPL 2 and GPL 3. Which mean that GNAT Ada 95 and at the movement all
> Ada 2005 compilers (GNAT only) are under GPL 2 or 3, which mean your
> code must be under GPL.
>

This is misinformation.

If you browse the source code repository on gcc.org at:
   svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/ada/a-textio.ads

In the file header you will find:

-- 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 
         --

This "special exception" is what makes the code at the FSF (free software 
foundataion)  covered by the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL).

My understanding is:
  If you want to use GNAT to generate code that is not covered by the GPL 
you must either:
    a) Pay AdaCore a bunch of $$$ for GnatPro whis is supported (very well I 
understand)
      -or-
    b) Obtain a distribution from a source other than AdaCore that is built 
using the FSF sources, which is certainly not supported by AdaCore.
      -or-
    c) Completely avoid the use of any Ada run time libraries (which is 
difficult if not impossible to do), in which case you could use the GnatGPL 
edition from AdaCore.

  If you don't care about whether the generated code is covered by teh GPL 
you may use the GnatGPL edition distributed from AdaCore.

Regards,
Steve
(The Duck)


> To know for sure, read the 'license.txt' that comes with GNAT package.
>
> In <0b115c04-ead8-4cec-8867-94ca9632a5b9@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, 
> "jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com> writes:
>>If I install GNAT from Cygwin or my Linux distribution, as part of
>>GCC, is there any way to know for sure which version of the runtime
>>it's using? I wouldn't want to use the one that forces me to GPL my
>>own code.
> 

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

First, the orginal poster does not want to use the GPL.

And the GNAT GPL is under the GPL.

As publish in the spring of 2007, the GNAT PRO was $14_000 per 
year.

The "special exception" clause allows the programmer to use GNAT 
acadamic or GPL to develope the software under a compatable GPL
license or the LGPL which is still apart of the GPL license structure.
Or they can develope the software using GNAT and then use GNAT PRO, 
Green hil, etc. Ada to compile the release binary version under another 
license. 




In <kP6dnWx7jdb7crPVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes:
>"anon" <anon@anon.org> wrote in message 
>news:LTmXj.345584$cQ1.268308@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> All programs that are compiled with GNU components are force to GPL 2
>> or 3.
>>
>> Explained in a number of web sites, such as Adacore.  You must use GNAT
>> that come with the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL). These are limited to
>> Ada 95 versions compiled and packaged back in the mid 1990s or use the
>> pay version (GNAT PRO).  Most archived versions have been updated to
>> GPL 2 and GPL 3. Which mean that GNAT Ada 95 and at the movement all
>> Ada 2005 compilers (GNAT only) are under GPL 2 or 3, which mean your
>> code must be under GPL.
>>
>
>This is misinformation.
>
>If you browse the source code repository on gcc.org at:
>   svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/ada/a-textio.ads
>
>In the file header you will find:
>
>-- 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 
>         --
>
>This "special exception" is what makes the code at the FSF (free software 
>foundataion)  covered by the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL).
>
>My understanding is:
>  If you want to use GNAT to generate code that is not covered by the GPL 
>you must either:
>    a) Pay AdaCore a bunch of $$$ for GnatPro whis is supported (very well I 
>understand)
>      -or-
>    b) Obtain a distribution from a source other than AdaCore that is built 
>using the FSF sources, which is certainly not supported by AdaCore.
>      -or-
>    c) Completely avoid the use of any Ada run time libraries (which is 
>difficult if not impossible to do), in which case you could use the GnatGPL 
>edition from AdaCore.
>

>  If you don't care about whether the generated code is covered by teh GPL 
>you may use the GnatGPL edition distributed from AdaCore.

ERROR! ERROR!! ERROR!!  GNAT GPL is unser the GPL version 2.

>
>Regards,
>Steve
>(The Duck)
>
>
>> To know for sure, read the 'license.txt' that comes with GNAT package.
>>
>> In <0b115c04-ead8-4cec-8867-94ca9632a5b9@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, 
>> "jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com> writes:
>>>If I install GNAT from Cygwin or my Linux distribution, as part of
>>>GCC, is there any way to know for sure which version of the runtime
>>>it's using? I wouldn't want to use the one that forces me to GPL my
>>>own code.
>> 
>
>

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "anon" == anon  <anon@anon.org> writes:

anon> The "special exception" clause allows the programmer to use GNAT
anon> acadamic or GPL to develope the software under a compatable GPL
anon> license or the LGPL which is still apart of the GPL license
anon> structure.  Or they can develope the software using GNAT and
anon> then use GNAT PRO, Green hil, etc. Ada to compile the release
anon> binary version under another license.

The first quoted sentence makes little sense: while you are developing
the software, you do not need to put any license on your code; you
only need a license when you are *distributing* your program to
others. Any version of GNAT lets you use the compiler for anything you
want as long as you do not distribute the compiled binary (and
circulation of the binary within a company is not considered as
distributing it).

Then, *if* and *when* you want do distribute a compiled version of
your program, you need to choose a license that will apply to this
particular distribution. When it comes to the choice of an Ada
compiler, you have the following alternatives to produce the
distributed executable:

  - GNAT as obtained from the FSF (which is the copyright owner and
    thus decides under what license it is released) contains the
    "special exception". For example, GNAT as found in Debian has been
    obtained through the FSF and Debian chose to retain this "special
    exception"; you can choose any license you want for the
    distribution of your program, including a proprietary one, and you
    do not have to distribute the source if you do not wish to do so.

  - GNAT Pro as distributed by AdaCore also retains this "special
    exception", as the Debian version does. This allows you to choose
    any license you want for your program.

  - GNAT GPL and GNAT Academic as distributed by AdaCore do *not*
    contain the "special exception". This is a choice made by AdaCore,
    as anyone is free to drop this exception at any time when
    redistributing GNAT (and the recipient cannot re-add it unless he
    is the copyright owner). They chose to make these version of GNAT
    and its associated runtime files a GPL only program. In this case,
    and only in this case, you may only distribute your program under
    a GPL compatible license as it has been linked with the GPL-only
    version of the Ada runtime, which also means that you have to
    make the sources available under this license.

  - If you use GNAT obtained from another source than the ones cited
    above, you need to check whether all the distributors up the chain
    (the chain starts at the FSF and ends at you) chose to retain the
    "special exception" or if anyone in the middle chose to drop it.

  - You may use a compiler other than GNAT, in which case you have to
    check the license of this compiler to determine what it allows and
    what it forbids. For example, a compiler license may ask that you
    pay royalties on the programs you sell, while another lets you do
    whatever you want.

 Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ivan Levashew]

Samuel Tardieu пишет:
>   - If you use GNAT obtained from another source than the ones cited
>     above, you need to check whether all the distributors up the chain
>     (the chain starts at the FSF and ends at you) chose to retain the
>     "special exception" or if anyone in the middle chose to drop it.
It's not because of compiler itself. It's because of GNAT RL. So IIUC 
you can still use GNAT GPL Edition, but with recompiled GMGPL GNARL.

-- 
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

Learn to read English!!! The original poster want to know about the 
LINUX and Windows version GNAT not about other version or the 
others vendors. 

A special note. The Debian maintainer "Ludovic Brenta" has stated in 
this newsgroup and other web sites that there are problem with GNAT 
Ada packages  that are stored at Debian. He said GNAT is not even 
Ada any more and has not been in a long time. That's a REAL big 
problem, so, using any version of Ada from Debian may be in error or 
illegal! Also to get the GMGPL run-time you must use GNAT PRO and 
only GNAT PRO the Linux and Windows version have never had the GMGPL 
RTL and never will legally.  Which mean it better, not to reference 
Debian's version of Ada.

Note: Sorry "Ludovic Brenta", but you did post the concept in a 
number of places.

Also, the way some of you guy talk Debian is you think it GOD.  It 
is NOT! It is just one of many versions of LINUX and contains a large 
archive of versions of packages for Linux. GNAT Ada is only one of 
many packages that are use by Debian and has been archived there. 
Plus, take a couple of minutes and do a search you will find a lot 
versions of GNAT Ada. And none of those packages have to do with 
Debian or its archives.

As for Copyright! Yes, Adacore may have passed the Copyright to FSF but  
Adacore still owns the "Intellectual Property" rights of GNAT Ada which 
is a larger issue.   And the group that owns the "Intellectual Property" 
sets the rights for what type of license the copyright owner can give the 
software and how the software should be used. For that, that group is 
Adacore, not FSF or Debian. Adacore decided a long time ago to set the 
license for GNAT academic and GNAT GPL for LINUX and Windows 
and other OS to GPL which at the time was version 2 and they have stated 
that all binaries created with either the academic or GPL will be under 
the GPL or GPL compatable as stated on the Adacore web site.  Only the 
GNAT PRO version can create a non-compatable GPL binary program! 


Also the "special exception" clause is added only on the GNU GCC 
compiled packages. The Adacore source and binary GPL version on 
Adacore web site does not contain the "special exception" clause.


Repeating this for others:
To get the GMGPL run-time you must use GNAT PRO and only GNAT PRO 
the Linux and Windows version have never had the GMGPL RTL and never 
will legally. Unless Adacore changes it policy!

In <8763tczga0.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:
>>>>>> "anon" == anon  <anon@anon.org> writes:
>
>anon> The "special exception" clause allows the programmer to use GNAT
>anon> acadamic or GPL to develope the software under a compatable GPL
>anon> license or the LGPL which is still apart of the GPL license
>anon> structure.  Or they can develope the software using GNAT and
>anon> then use GNAT PRO, Green hil, etc. Ada to compile the release
>anon> binary version under another license.
>
>The first quoted sentence makes little sense: while you are developing
>the software, you do not need to put any license on your code; you
>only need a license when you are *distributing* your program to
>others. Any version of GNAT lets you use the compiler for anything you
>want as long as you do not distribute the compiled binary (and
>circulation of the binary within a company is not considered as
>distributing it).
>
>Then, *if* and *when* you want do distribute a compiled version of
>your program, you need to choose a license that will apply to this
>particular distribution. When it comes to the choice of an Ada
>compiler, you have the following alternatives to produce the
>distributed executable:
>
>  - GNAT as obtained from the FSF (which is the copyright owner and
>    thus decides under what license it is released) contains the
>    "special exception". For example, GNAT as found in Debian has been
>    obtained through the FSF and Debian chose to retain this "special
>    exception"; you can choose any license you want for the
>    distribution of your program, including a proprietary one, and you
>    do not have to distribute the source if you do not wish to do so.
>
>  - GNAT Pro as distributed by AdaCore also retains this "special
>    exception", as the Debian version does. This allows you to choose
>    any license you want for your program.
>
>  - GNAT GPL and GNAT Academic as distributed by AdaCore do *not*
>    contain the "special exception". This is a choice made by AdaCore,
>    as anyone is free to drop this exception at any time when
>    redistributing GNAT (and the recipient cannot re-add it unless he
>    is the copyright owner). They chose to make these version of GNAT
>    and its associated runtime files a GPL only program. In this case,
>    and only in this case, you may only distribute your program under
>    a GPL compatible license as it has been linked with the GPL-only
>    version of the Ada runtime, which also means that you have to
>    make the sources available under this license.
>
>  - If you use GNAT obtained from another source than the ones cited
>    above, you need to check whether all the distributors up the chain
>    (the chain starts at the FSF and ends at you) chose to retain the
>    "special exception" or if anyone in the middle chose to drop it.
>
>  - You may use a compiler other than GNAT, in which case you have to
>    check the license of this compiler to determine what it allows and
>    what it forbids. For example, a compiler license may ask that you
>    pay royalties on the programs you sell, while another lets you do
>    whatever you want.
>
> Sam
>-- 
>Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Simon Wright]

To all readers who haven't come across "anon" before:

About 1% of the time he (I don't _think_ "anon" is female) says
something sensible. The rest of the time, it's drivel (as in this
thread). So the best policy is never to read any of his postings at
all ...

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Simon Wright wrote:
> 
> About 1% of the time he (I don't _think_ "anon" is female) says
> something sensible. The rest of the time, it's drivel (as in this
> thread). So the best policy is never to read any of his postings at
> all ...

I think "it" is the appropriate pronoun.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey-bottom biters."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
14

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ludovic Brenta]

anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
> A special note. The Debian maintainer "Ludovic Brenta" has stated in 
> this newsgroup
[...]

Anon, I don't usually read what you write but since you mention me by
name, I have to react and ask you to NOT repeat what I say.  You are
incapable of repeating accurately enough.  Please let me say things
for myself.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL) to "Ludovic Brenta"

[anon]

First, You said it!  A number of Times

A couple of places are like the BUG report at gcc.org. Which can found by 
searching for your post and and at gcc.org.

And as most here do I will do as I please not as a person 
who cut down GCC or GNAT ADA says!!!


In <87fxsgrq8c.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
>> A special note. The Debian maintainer "Ludovic Brenta" has stated in 
>> this newsgroup
>[...]
>
>Anon, I don't usually read what you write but since you mention me by
>name, I have to react and ask you to NOT repeat what I say.  You are
>incapable of repeating accurately enough.  Please let me say things
>for myself.
>
>-- 
>Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "anon" == anon  <anon@anon.org> writes:

anon> Repeating this for others: To get the GMGPL run-time you must
anon> use GNAT PRO and only GNAT PRO the Linux and Windows version
anon> have never had the GMGPL RTL and never will legally. Unless
anon> Adacore changes it policy!

You may repeat it as much as you want, this is just plain BS. Either
you don't understand anything wrt licensing issues, or you are a
troll. Either way I'm finished with you.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[anon]

Abnd you are just like Asus with their close-source GPL drivers!  Until 
the long arm of FSF with the law come down on you.


In <87tzgwxbtq.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:
>>>>>> "anon" == anon  <anon@anon.org> writes:
>
>anon> Repeating this for others: To get the GMGPL run-time you must
>anon> use GNAT PRO and only GNAT PRO the Linux and Windows version
>anon> have never had the GMGPL RTL and never will legally. Unless
>anon> Adacore changes it policy!
>
>You may repeat it as much as you want, this is just plain BS. Either
>you don't understand anything wrt licensing issues, or you are a
>troll. Either way I'm finished with you.
>
>  Sam
>-- 
>Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[michael bode]

Steve schrieb:

> If you browse the source code repository on gcc.org at:
>    svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/ada/a-textio.ads
> 
> In the file header you will find:
> 
> -- 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 
>          --
> 
> This "special exception" is what makes the code at the FSF (free software 
> foundataion)  covered by the GMGPL (GNAT modified GPL).

An interesting footnote: I've just downloaded the sources of GtkAda (GPL 
   Edition) from libre.adacore.com and it too contains the linking 
exception. But as has been discussed many times this alledgedly doesn't 
mean anything for the licence under which GtkAda (GPL Edition) is 
distributed.

Probably you have 3 choices: a) don't distribute under any licence other 
than GPL, b) ask a lawyer or c) do what you want an hope for the best.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Ivan Levashew]

michael bode пишет:

> Probably you have 3 choices: a) don't distribute under any licence other 
> than GPL, b) ask a lawyer or c) do what you want an hope for the best.

d) Add this info to the "Ada programming" wikibook. With all the 
references needed.

-- 
If you want to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Simon Wright]

"jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com> writes:

> If I install GNAT from Cygwin or my Linux distribution, as part of
> GCC, is there any way to know for sure which version of the runtime
> it's using? I wouldn't want to use the one that forces me to GPL my
> own code.

If it's an FSF GCC including Ada then it will be the version that
allows you to build proprietary code. That would include GNAT from
Cygwin or as part of your Linux distribution.

If it's a non-PRO ('GPL') GNAT from AdaCore, the extra permission
isn't available.

You can look at the source of the RTL; if it's the GPL version, there
will be a region about 30 lines into the header comment where the
extra permissions have been removed.

Probably rather easier to say 'gnatls -v'. If the output starts with
something like GNATLS GPL 2007 (20070402-41) then you have a GPL
version.

If it's more like GNATLS 4.0.0 or perhaps GNATLS PRO x.y.z (don't have
one here), it's got the GMGPL permissions.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[qunying]

On May 16, 3:12 pm, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> If it's an FSF GCC including Ada then it will be the version that
> allows you to build proprietary code. That would include GNAT from
> Cygwin or as part of your Linux distribution.
I don't think you could do that with Cygwin version. When using the
cygwin runtime, you either need to GPL your code or obtain a license
from redhat. Or you use mingw build to avoid the cygwin runtime.

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[qunying]

On May 20, 2:40 pm, qunying <zhu.quny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:12 pm, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > If it's an FSF GCC including Ada then it will be the version that
> > allows you to build proprietary code. That would include GNAT from
> > Cygwin or as part of your Linux distribution.
>
> I don't think you could do that with Cygwin version. When using the
> cygwin runtime, you either need to GPL your code or obtain a license
> from redhat. Or you use mingw build to avoid the cygwin runtime.

To be more accurate about licensing on cygwin, http://cygwin.com/license.html

Re: Runtime versions (GPL vs Modified GPL)

[Simon Wright]

qunying <zhu.qunying@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 16, 3:12�pm, Simon Wright <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> If it's an FSF GCC including Ada then it will be the version that
>> allows you to build proprietary code. That would include GNAT from
>> Cygwin or as part of your Linux distribution.
> I don't think you could do that with Cygwin version. When using the
> cygwin runtime, you either need to GPL your code or obtain a license
> from redhat. Or you use mingw build to avoid the cygwin runtime.

Good points -- just goes to show how careful you have to be! I guess
this comes under the "any other reason" section.